On the issue of owning guns

[ZOS23xy]

I think Obama should move on to outlawing guns as well...

I'm in favor of more social education than outright bans. Then again, you're trying to hijack the thread. That wouldn't be the first time.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Is it against the law for me to have 19" guns?

no

but it should be that if you do, you should post some pics of said guns :biggrin1:

 

[B_Nick4444]

what he said

Guns are equalizers and are personal tools of detente between us and the criminals among us and a govt. that would otherwise go ape shit on our asses.

If we have a problem with guns it is because gangs are not treated like the terrorist organizations that they are. If we have to have something like the Patriot Act then use it to open a can of whop ass on the Bloods, Crips, Maratrucha, Aryan Brotherhood or whatever.

Did you all know that every male in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their homes in order to protect the country? WTF, those among us who can't act like a Swiss in this has to be re-educated or gotten rid of somehow.

 

[WIO]

This discussion originated with my wife: I'm not as deeply involved in politics as she is, but the outline goes as follows:

If you have a car, which can be a big clunky object, and dangerous, you have to have insurance for it.

Therefore, if you own a gun, which can be a dangerous object, you should need to have an insurance policy for it.

Because you never know when something wrong will happen, and the liability lies with the owner. If the gun gets stolen, it becomes a massive liability. Or an accident causes it to discharge, hitting someone.

I'll sit back for a few moments...

While we're at it, let's make people insure baseball bats, knives and billy clubs too. We could use the profits from insurance companies to help pay for national healthcare that the 25-30% of people want. That's a GREAT idea!

 

[ZOS23xy]

I'm not sure but some of these things are covered in some apsects of homeowner's ins. All dangerous, to be sure, and you can be sued if a stranger walks over your property and falls on a knife.

Long ago recollections of a burglar suing a homeowner for injuries sustained while doing his act, and winning come to mind....

the whole situation is a mess...

 

[B_spiker067]

thats because they have a militia with compulsory military service for all men of a certain age.

I guess you missed the point of the fact that there isn't the gun play in Switzerland that there is in the U.S. even though there is a gun in every house?

 

[1kmb1]

I guess you missed the point of the fact that there isn't the gun play in Switzerland that there is in the U.S. even though there is a gun in every house?

no, i was pointing out the difference which is that they are trained to handle their guns.

 

[B_spiker067]

no, i was pointing out the difference which is that they are trained to handle their guns.

Yes, because it is training and not intrinsic cultural values that makes the difference as to whether one uses their guns on family and friends or fellow citizens.:tongue:

 

[slurper_la]

preface: I own a handgun

there are Constitutional scholars who can convincingly argue the Second Amendment does not allow for the unrestricted ownership of firearms.

The 2nd Amendment begins: A well regulated militia, being necessary for a free State...
It could be argued that the intent was the establishment of the National Guard for each of the states. If not for the overpowering favoritism of gun ownership by congress it could easily have come down that way. One can easily understand that uncontrolled, individual ownership of guns does not conform to the requirement of a well regulated militia

Remember that at the time of the writing and eventual adoption of the Constitution there was to be no standing army under federal control

 

[B_spiker067]

preface: I own a handgun
... under federal control

Simply uninformed.

Try this: GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

And realize that the 14th Amendment was passed so that blacks could keep their guns after the Civil War to defend themselves from whites who were passing laws to take guns away from them.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazon.com: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 (9780275963316): Stephen P. Halbrook: Books

Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the right to bear arms in the second amendment directly follows the first amendment (the right to free speech) and that both are in the "Bill of Rights" which are commonly acknowledged as individual rights.

 

[jason_els]

preface: I own a handgun

there are Constitutional scholars who can convincingly argue the Second Amendment does not allow for the unrestricted ownership of firearms.

The 2nd Amendment begins: A well regulated militia, being necessary for a free State...
It could be argued that the intent was the establishment of the National Guard for each of the states. If not for the overpowering favoritism of gun ownership by congress it could easily have come down that way. One can easily understand that uncontrolled, individual ownership of guns does not conform to the requirement of a well regulated militia

Remember that at the time of the writing and eventual adoption of the Constitution there was to be no standing army under federal control

The amendment does. Anyone who thinks otherwise is unfamiliar with proper English grammar.

The Second Amendment is a complex sentence containing two clauses. The first is a dependent clause, the second is an independent clause. The very first phrase in the sentence, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state," is a nominative absolute phrase, making it a dependent clause because it does not make a complete statement on its own. The rest of the sentence is an independent clause because it does make a complete statement on its own. Because of this, the first clause is grammatically dependent upon the second clause. The framers are saying, "Because X is necessary, Y is required." This was plainly evident to them, men with some of the greatest educations in the colonies, and should be completely evident to anyone with a competent grasp of the English language.

 

[finsuptx]

This discussion originated with my wife: I'm not as deeply involved in politics as she is, but the outline goes as follows:

If you have a car, which can be a big clunky object, and dangerous, you have to have insurance for it.

Therefore, if you own a gun, which can be a dangerous object, you should need to have an insurance policy for it.

Because you never know when something wrong will happen, and the liability lies with the owner. If the gun gets stolen, it becomes a massive liability. Or an accident causes it to discharge, hitting someone.

I'll sit back for a few moments...

JUST what we need... more insurance companies fleecing hardworking Americans. History will refer to these times as the Dark Hours in the Evolution of Humans.

 

[slurper_la]

The amendment does. Anyone who thinks otherwise is unfamiliar with proper English grammar.

What a remarkably insulting comment!

There has been debate over the intent of articles for centuries yet you boil it all down to one's familiarity with proper English grammar? If all were so eloquently clear and understandable we would not have 27 amendments to the original document nor would there be need for constitutional attorneys to argue the merits of their cases before the SCOTUS.

 

[jason_els]

What a remarkably insulting comment!

Not insulting in the least. The sentence is unambiguous and clear. The argument that somehow a militia is required to allow the carrying of firearms is specious because that is not what the amendment says. To read it in such a manner is to not understand what is being said. The only way such misunderstanding could occur is to not understand the grammatical structure of the sentence or, perhaps (though not an issue here) not know what a word means.

There has been debate over the intent of articles for centuries yet you boil it all down to one's familiarity with proper English grammar?

In this particular case, yes.

If all were so eloquently clear and understandable we would not have 27 amendments to the original document nor would there be need for constitutional attorneys to argue the merits of their cases before the SCOTUS.

Yes, if all parts of the Constitution were so clear there would be fewer SCOTUS cases. That, however, is not the argument here. In this case, with this argument, it is quite plain and simple.

 

[joyboytoy79]

The problem is that the Second Amendment doesn't restrict firearms on the basis of who has insurance or not. Cars are not a right in the Constitution of the U.S. I argue that any law which restricts firearm ownership is illegal under the Second Amendment. If you can carry it then you have a right to own it. This business of area restrictions (like schools) and what types of firearms can be owned is ridiculous and dangerous because it detracts from the authority of the Constitution. Either the Amendment should be amended or rescinded or the Constitution should be enforced as stated.

To quote directly from 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.

Lovely that the founders, in their infinite understanding of the English language, should choose to use words that have multiple, and in some cases contradictory, meanings. One word with multiple meanings is "infringe" which can mean to break a law, or to restrict undermine something. As such, there are two schools of thought on what this amendment means. It could mean A) The legal rights of the people to own guns shall not be illegally removed, or B) The rights of people to own guys shall not be restricted. You seem to be of the B school, whereas the SCOTUS seems to be in the A school. I say that, because SCOTUS has agreed that certain classes of firearms (like nuclear weapons) are not protected under the second amendment. That is, they think some regulation, ie restriction, is allowable under the amendment, so long as it doesn't remove the right to own some class of firearm.

Interestingly, this amendment does not speak of guns at all. It speaks of arms. Now, i'm not going to be silly and say it means we should not be denied use or keeping of our upper limbs. I am, however, going to point out that Arms, usually refers to Armaments, which are, simply weapons. Not guns, but weapons. If it was referring only to guns, it would have said FIREarms, but it doesn't. It only says Arms. I concede that guns are weapons, but so are nunchucks, machetes, switchblades, anthrax, ebolavirus, grenades, mustard gas, dynamite, and well, in the case of martial arts enthusiasts, limbs. Where is all of the public outrage at not being able to lawfully carry a vial of ebolavirus? Why can I not legally maintain a nuclear warhead as a hobby? The second amendment DOES NOT MENTION GUNS, it mentions ARMS, and these things are ARMS. Why are guns the only things ever debated in reference to the second amendment?

Why? Because it isn't as simple as English grammar. It's about interpretation and practicality. If you want unrestricted access to arms, go right ahead, but I'm moving as far away as possible.

 

[thadjock]

Why? Because it isn't as simple as English grammar. It's about interpretation and practicality. If you want unrestricted access to arms, go right ahead, but I'm moving as far away as possible.

exactly

both the current scotus and potus are on the same page with this,

it does give the individual the right to own guns.

till we get a new admin or the court overturns its present interpretation i guess u need to stay away from LA cuz I'm keeping my guns.

 

[joyboytoy79]

exactly

both the current scotus and potus are on the same page with this,

it does give the individual the right to own guns.

till we get a new admin or the court overturns its present interpretation i guess u need to stay away from LA cuz I'm keeping my guns.

I never said i was against gun ownership. I just think there need to be a few common sense restrictions in place. If you want a 22 shotgun, fine. If you want a semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifle, well... i'm not sure i want to live around those. And if you want a nuclear warhead, i'm outta there!

 

[thadjock]

I never said i was against gun ownership. I just think there need to be a few common sense restrictions in place. If you want a 22 shotgun, fine. If you want a semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifle, well... i'm not sure i want to live around those. And if you want a nuclear warhead, i'm outta there!

a 22 is a rifle not a shotgun

and i got ur nuclear warhead right here > B======D~~~~ <
:biggrin1:

 

[joyboytoy79]

a 22 is a rifle not a shotgun

and i got ur nuclear warhead right here > B======D~~~~ <
:biggrin1:

Well, I stand corrected. And I'll take THAT nuclear warhead any day. I happen to have a silo for it's safe-keeping and everything!

 

[B_spiker067]

I thank Jason for the grammar lessons and I reiterate a post that went uncommented.

Try this: GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment <---link>

And realize that the 14th Amendment was passed so that blacks could keep their guns after the Civil War to defend themselves from whites who were passing laws to take guns away from them.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <---link>

Amazon.com: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 (9780275963316): Stephen P. Halbrook: Books <---link>

Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the right to bear arms in the second amendment directly follows the first amendment (the right to free speech) and that both are in the "Bill of Rights" which are commonly acknowledged as individual rights.