 |
|

03-24-2008, 06:11 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 3,153
|
|
I'd like to hear this theory about Gun ownership not being an individual right. I have heard some crazy shit, too.
If you are against private gun ownership in America, fine. I can respect a difference in opinion. However, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that firearm ownership is an individual right.
If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, Go ahead and commit political suicide with that while running for office. Your choice. Just don't distort our Consitution further with these so called Collective Rights. Remember folks, Collective Rights do not exist. Its an excuse to take your rights away, that is all collectivism is.
__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman
|

04-22-2008, 01:37 PM
|
 |
Seasoned Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A Police State
Posts: 52
|
|
Actually, we've had a solution all ready for keeping the schools and malls much safer, and it's worked beautifully before politicians and retarded officials decided to change it for 'safety' reasons.
My older brother, who was in High School in Erie, PA was told to bring his rifle to school by the gun safety teacher. Every student in the class was. If they didn't own one and their parents couldn't afford it, then they could borrow the "classroom" rifle, but they also had to share, there was only 5 of them. This was in 1974 and even as early as he could remember, there were no problems with students going on shooting rampages. But there was more to it than just classroom education.
There were shooting clubs by age group, as early as 9 year olds could participate. Awards for excellence in shooting were given out every year to the best scores. During hunting season in Warren County, there would be a weigh in for the awards for the heaviest deer. Then the meat for every one shot went to the soup kitchens to feed the poor. Since the Indian Reservation close by had herds of deer by the tens of thousands ranging into the official hunting grounds every winter, it wasn't a problem.
Families taught their children respect for firearms. It was a means to feed the hungry, to be responsible and most importantly, to defend oneself with.
In 1977, the first of several gun restrictions were imposed upon the residents of Erie. No more tournaments. No more yearly hunts for the soup kitchens. No more classroom gun safety courses. Turn your firearms over to the city, who in turn handed them over to the PA National Guard for disposal, and they got a 50% tax relief on their property bill for helping to make the city safer.
By the end of 1978, my parents left Erie because the crime had blown out of control, including rapes at gun point by criminals. It was unheard of before, and the rapid crime wave was proof positive that any disregard for the 2nd Amendment wasn't a good thing, but as we know, a policy and law change is rarely if at all repealed. Politicians hate admitting they were wrong, so they made up more garbage to explain how things would only improve over time.
So the solution then is the same for today. Teach children respect for firearms early, like we teach them to respect a hot stove top. By example, by demonstration along with a healthy dose of responsibility. Teach them to respect their weapon and how to safely clean it, store it and if needed, use it for self defense. Get them involved in events that require the use of these firearms, so there is a familiar feeling of achievement by doing things properly with such knowledge. Also, to keep their skills sharp.
I promise you, if a criminal gets ahold of a gun, he would be terrified to break the law in such a place. Not only are the adults capable, but the kids are winning awards for marksmanship at the school gun range. Well, that's the way it used to be. And remember, back then, there weren't ANY of these negative issues.
But then, the people were actually free too. It's amazing, the difference between being repsonisble with the liberty one has versus having liberty severely restricted so we don't have to be responsible anymore.
__________________
|

04-22-2008, 01:43 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 5,271
|
|
Actually, we've had a solution all ready for keeping the schools and malls much safer, and it's worked beautifully before politicians and retarded officials decided to change it for 'safety' reasons.
The Al Qaida called for attacks on schools and malls last December.
__________________
Democrats are raping Americans at the pump
|

04-22-2008, 02:08 PM
|
 |
Seasoned Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A Police State
Posts: 52
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wow
Actually, we've had a solution all ready for keeping the schools and malls much safer, and it's worked beautifully before politicians and retarded officials decided to change it for 'safety' reasons.
The Al Qaida called for attacks on schools and malls last December.
|
The moment we let such wackos dictate our fears so we change the way we live, is the day we start a downward spiral to becoming as repressive as our enemies. Sadly, that has gotten off to a powerful start all ready and is near impossible to reverse, thanks to the current Administration.
However, I can promise that if a guy or several guys starts unloading on people while I am at a mall, I won't hesitate and I won't miss. It's just too bad that the other 400 or so shoppers aren't as fortunate to grow up in the same light of freedom as I did, and are allowed to practice it today. To grow up well versed in firearms and their use.
I can't stand the fact I have to have a permit. It's not a right if I have to pay for permission to carry my firearm. But I have one, to stay "legal" as one might say. I miss having the US Consitution as my permit, because one, it doesn't cost anything and two, it used to be valid forever, with no experation date. My current permit expires my Second Amendment Rights in 4 more years, then it's another $350 bucks if it doesn't go up.

__________________
|

04-22-2008, 03:23 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 8,985
|
|
For those people who believe that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to the establishment of a milita I have a simple question. Since by difinitiion the military possesses weapons why would a constitutional provision be required to allow them to own guns?
__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy
|

04-23-2008, 09:03 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the wall behind you.
Posts: 2,752
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
Maybe it would be smart of you to come up with a plan to keep our college and high school classrooms a little more safe, eh? And while your at it, maybe you'd like to devise a plan to keep the shopping malls free of terrorists, eh? The ball is in your court.
|
Gun control...

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Pat Paulsen for President
It's a sad time when our political process is centered on negative attacks on another rather than concentrating on our own accomplishments.
|

04-23-2008, 10:19 PM
|
 |
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 536
|
|
See What Happens...
See? See? See what happens when guns are legal and plentiful?
It's the end of civilization as we know it!!!
__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!
|

04-25-2008, 09:15 AM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 147
|
|
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). Furthermore, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar the regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Whatever rights that may be protected under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say they are not unlimited, much less absolute. In this, we should be wary of what we wish, for we may get much more than we would want. For those that want their rights protected under the Second Amendment, they may soon find that they are only the more “well regulated.”
|

04-25-2008, 09:58 AM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 100
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
Maybe it would be smart of you to come up with a plan to keep our college and high school classrooms a little more safe, eh? And while your at it, maybe you'd like to devise a plan to keep the shopping malls free of terrorists, eh? The ball is in your court.
|
Arm EVERYONE with guns. Nobody would want to kill anyone because they'll know they'll get shot. For the suicidals, they have no problem with that but cant be stopped anyway, they could kill everyone as easily with a knife. Thats what they do over in Britain.
|

04-25-2008, 10:03 AM
|
 |
Seasoned Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A Police State
Posts: 52
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). Furthermore, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar the regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Whatever rights that may be protected under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say they are not unlimited, much less absolute. In this, we should be wary of what we wish, for we may get much more than we would want. For those that want their rights protected under the Second Amendment, they may soon find that they are only the more “well regulated.”
|
The entire US Constitution doesn't grant rights nor was it never intended too. It was written originally to protect the Rights we have because we exist.
Besides, that case was more about refuting an incident that happened where there was a shootout between freedmen and whites, and the white people were charged with a crime under the Enforcement Act of 1870, That is what they mean by "second and tenth counts" down there in the quote I took from the case files.
Quote:
|
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.
|
I kinda underlined the part that actually kept the Amendment in perspective with what we can and cannot do and the focus of it all, remember, we got to read after the comma too, can't stop right there because it fits what we want to hear.
Kinda good to see you went someplace, however. Hey, why did you leave Political Hotwire? Some of the people there actually liked you.
__________________
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|