|
If it's true, it's very disturbing
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 5 2009, 02:36 PM (1,069 Views)
|
|
ivorythumper
|
Apr 6 2009, 02:54 PM
Post #76
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 11:11 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 11:08 AM
So the track record of the State infringing on the Second Amendment does not give any reason for confidence in your position on how you interpret the Second Amendment to ensure those rights.
You have switched the argument from theory to practice. Should I take it you accede to the theory? Uhh... all we have is things as they are. If you are talking about theory, then there is no point in talking since your theory probably requires a benign, benevolent and unobtrusive government that has never been known to exist.
Shall I take it that you accede to the problem in the practice?
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
QuantumIvory
|
Apr 6 2009, 02:59 PM
Post #77
|
- Posts:
- 1,557
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #769
- Joined:
- December 1, 2008
|
- John D'Oh
- Apr 6 2009, 02:43 PM
- Larry
- Apr 6 2009, 08:11 AM
Funny how a lot of what's happening right now parallels Hitler's rise to power.
Mark:
Yep! They are working on the gun bans as we speak too.
Funnily enough, when I think of Hitler, the first thing that springs to mind isn't gun-registration. Hitlers rise to power: 1. The Superpower Germany is impoverished and humiliated by reparations required after losing a world war. 2. He becomes the leader of a small, virulently anti-semitic bunch of nationists. 3. He attempts a violent overthrow of the government, and is imprisoned. 4. Germany suffers a total economic collapse. Massive inflation, people starve to death. 5. The German political system in tatters, after a number of attempts, Hitler gets elected as Chancellor. 6. The Reichstag burns, Hitler suspends Habeus Corpus, bans opposition groups, and murders a number of it's leaders. I don't know about you chaps, but I don't find the parallels exactly jumping out of the page. Oh yeah? Just wait until number four manifests itself.
|
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:05 PM
Post #78
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 02:54 PM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 11:11 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 11:08 AM
So the track record of the State infringing on the Second Amendment does not give any reason for confidence in your position on how you interpret the Second Amendment to ensure those rights.
You have switched the argument from theory to practice. Should I take it you accede to the theory?
Uhh... all we have is things as they are. If you are talking about theory, then there is no point in talking since your theory probably requires a benign, benevolent and unobtrusive government that has never been known to exist. Shall I take it that you accede to the problem in the practice? You're a day late and a dollar short. JB already pointed out the practical problems. I acknowledged that the NRA worries about the camel's nose under the tent.
But, once again, you don't understand the concept. The concept of what the Constitution means, and permits, has nothing to do with a benign, benevolent, and unobtrusive government. The language means what it means, and the meaning doesn't change based on the nature of the government.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
Larry
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:10 PM
Post #79
|
- Posts:
- 47,972
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #113
- Joined:
- April 22, 2005
|
States can't enact laws that conflict with the federal Constitution. So arguing that States can place restrictions on guns constitutionally doesn't fly.
Telling people they have to register their guns, have to get a license to carry a gun, or telling them what kind of gun they can carry is an infringement of our natural right to bear arms.
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe
|
| |
|
Renauda
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:12 PM
Post #80
|
- Posts:
- 10,507
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #505
- Joined:
- September 5, 2007
|
Try "our constitutional right to bear arms". It is not a natural right.
|
|
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:13 PM
Post #81
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- Larry
- Apr 6 2009, 03:10 PM
States can't enact laws that conflict with the federal Constitution. So arguing that States can place restrictions on guns constitutionally doesn't fly.
Telling people they have to register their guns, have to get a license to carry a gun, or telling them what kind of gun they can carry is an infringement of our natural right to bear arms.
Again, I start from the supposition that registration-only does not violate the federal Constitution, since it does NOT infringe on the right to bear arms. It infringes on the right to keep a secret about the arms you own, which is not a Constitutional right.
I completely agree that the states are not free to enact laws that would violate the federal Constitution. I don't think gun registration does, any more than parade registration or an FCC license does.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
Larry
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:28 PM
Post #82
|
- Posts:
- 47,972
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #113
- Joined:
- April 22, 2005
|
- Quote:
-
Again, I start from the supposition that registration-only does not violate the federal Constitution, since it does NOT infringe on the right to bear arms.
I see it as a huge infringement. If they can require you to register them, you're one step closer to them being able to refuse to register them.
Guns should be sold the same way chewing gum is sold. The only requirement the government should be allowed to place on them is to require everyone to own one, and know how to use it. Instead of making people get a license in order to carry one, they should have to buy an exemption to *not* carry one.
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe
|
| |
|
John D'Oh
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:31 PM
Post #83
|
- Posts:
- 53,799
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #276
- Joined:
- October 19, 2005
|
- QuantumIvory
- Apr 6 2009, 02:59 PM
- John D'Oh
- Apr 6 2009, 02:43 PM
- Larry
- Apr 6 2009, 08:11 AM
4. Germany suffers a total economic collapse. Massive inflation, people starve to death. I don't know about you chaps, but I don't find the parallels exactly jumping out of the page.
Oh yeah? Just wait until number four manifests itself.
If the depression happened in 1930, and Hitler was elected in 1934, it seems reasonable not to worry about President Hindenberg Obama, but rather whoever the GOP find to replace him. Reichsfuhrer Sarah Palin possibly?
|
|
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:47 PM
Post #84
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- Larry
- Apr 6 2009, 03:28 PM
- Quote:
-
Again, I start from the supposition that registration-only does not violate the federal Constitution, since it does NOT infringe on the right to bear arms.
I see it as a huge infringement. If they can require you to register them, you're one step closer to them being able to refuse to register them. One step closer isn't the same as being there. If you are on the right side of the line, you're allowed to get one step closer to it without going over.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Apr 6 2009, 03:56 PM
Post #85
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 03:05 PM
You're a day late and a dollar short. JB already pointed out the practical problems. I acknowledged that the NRA worries about the camel's nose under the tent.
But, once again, you don't understand the concept. The concept of what the Constitution means, and permits, has nothing to do with a benign, benevolent, and unobtrusive government. The language means what it means, and the meaning doesn't change based on the nature of the government. So in other words, you agree with me. You agree that practically -- given the way the government actually does act -- that people are rightfully leery of registering weapons under some claim that registering is not an infringement when in reality we see that it actually is an infringement and that the State has been known to confiscate legally registered weapons.
Obviously if the government did always act benevolently and benignly and unobtrusively with regard to the right to bear arms, this would not be a source of contention, so it is really a dubious point for you to suggest that the meaning does not change based on the nature of the government.
But it would kill you to admit that, and so you have to go on another of your silly ad hominem arguments. You are a source of endless amusement, Quirt. One of the reasons I really enjoy being here.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Apr 6 2009, 04:00 PM
Post #86
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
And of course, all this is in reference to your wishful claim that "Since you still own the gun, it's not an infringement on ownership."
When I pointed out that in practice that is not the case, and that registered weapons have been confiscated by the State, you accuse me of not appreciating the theory and being a day late and a dollar short?
Try to at least follow your own argument, Quirt.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
QuantumIvory
|
Apr 6 2009, 04:00 PM
Post #87
|
- Posts:
- 1,557
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #769
- Joined:
- December 1, 2008
|
- John D'Oh
- Apr 6 2009, 03:31 PM
- QuantumIvory
- Apr 6 2009, 02:59 PM
- John D'Oh
- Apr 6 2009, 02:43 PM
- Larry
- Apr 6 2009, 08:11 AM
4. Germany suffers a total economic collapse. Massive inflation, people starve to death. I don't know about you chaps, but I don't find the parallels exactly jumping out of the page.
Oh yeah? Just wait until number four manifests itself.
If the depression happened in 1930, and Hitler was elected in 1934, it seems reasonable not to worry about President Hindenberg Obama, but rather whoever the GOP find to replace him. Reichsfuhrer Sarah Palin possibly? Well then, one of these should come in handy for her:
|
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 6 2009, 04:16 PM
Post #88
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 03:56 PM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 03:05 PM
You're a day late and a dollar short. JB already pointed out the practical problems. I acknowledged that the NRA worries about the camel's nose under the tent.
But, once again, you don't understand the concept. The concept of what the Constitution means, and permits, has nothing to do with a benign, benevolent, and unobtrusive government. The language means what it means, and the meaning doesn't change based on the nature of the government.
So in other words, you agree with me. You agree that practically -- given the way the government actually does act -- that people are rightfully leery of registering weapons under some claim that registering is not an infringement when in reality we see that it actually is an infringement and that the State has been known to confiscate legally registered weapons. Obviously if the government did always act benevolently and benignly and unobtrusively with regard to the right to bear arms, this would not be a source of contention, so it is really a dubious point for you to suggest that the meaning does not change based on the nature of the government. But it would kill you to admit that, and so you have to go on another of your silly ad hominem arguments. You are a source of endless amusement, Quirt. One of the reasons I really enjoy being here. How something might be implemented in practice has nothing to do with whether something is Constitutional or not.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 6 2009, 04:19 PM
Post #89
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 04:00 PM
And of course, all this is in reference to your wishful claim that "Since you still own the gun, it's not an infringement on ownership."
When I pointed out that in practice that is not the case, and that registered weapons have been confiscated by the State, you accuse me of not appreciating the theory and being a day late and a dollar short?
Try to at least follow your own argument, Quirt. It's really hard having a discussion with you when you keep wandering off the point.
We're talking THEORY. If the government seized unregistered weapons, that would change the nature of the hypothetical. It's not part of the hypothetical. You can't change the hypothetical and then argue that you're answering the original hypothetical.
I know it's hard, because you are losing, but try to stick to the subject.
And, just to remind you, here's the subject: a gun registration law, which punishes a gun owner for failing to register but doesn't take away his gun, is not an unconstitutional infringement on the right of gun ownership.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
JBryan
|
Apr 6 2009, 04:26 PM
Post #90
|
- Posts:
- 28,082
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
All of this comes down to whether registration of firearms is an infringement on the right to own and bear arms. It could be reasonably argued that it is not as long as it does not interfere with easy access to firearms. We already deny access to convicted felons. Is that unconstitutional? It is by the plain meaning of the Constitution but an originalist (as opposed a literalist) might conclude that the founders never anticipated this ever being a question. One might easily conclude the same thing about registration but, again, arguably, not as easily. As I said before, it is not the act of registration in and of itself that violates the right to own and bear arms. It is the abuses that such a requirement engenders. Reasonable people disagree on this subject but there are enough unreasonable people activating for registration (who actually want prohibition) to make the NRA's camel's nose under the tent not so unreasonable. To give up to a strategy clearly aimed at infringing a constitutional right can be no less odious than acceding to a direct refutation of the plain language of the constitutional provision which affirms that right.
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne
There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".
Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.
Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.
From The Lion in Winter.
|
| |
|
Frank_W
|
Apr 6 2009, 04:29 PM
Post #91
|
- Posts:
- 43,949
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #381
- Joined:
- September 6, 2006
|
Right on the nail, JB.
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 6 2009, 05:16 PM
Post #92
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- JBryan
- Apr 6 2009, 04:26 PM
All of this comes down to whether registration of firearms is an infringement on the right to own and bear arms. It could be reasonably argued that it is not as long as it does not interfere with easy access to firearms. We already deny access to convicted felons. Is that unconstitutional? It is by the plain meaning of the Constitution but an originalist (as opposed a literalist) might conclude that the founders never anticipated this ever being a question. One might easily conclude the same thing about registration but, again, arguably, not as easily. As I said before, it is not the act of registration in and of itself that violates the right to own and bear arms. It is the abuses that such a requirement engenders. Reasonable people disagree on this subject but there are enough unreasonable people activating for registration (who actually want prohibition) to make the NRA's camel's nose under the tent not so unreasonable. To give up to a strategy clearly aimed at infringing a constitutional right can be no less odious than acceding to a direct refutation of the plain language of the constitutional provision which affirms that right. A reasonable analysis of the question presented. I don't necessarily agree on all points, but it's a reasonable analysis. As opposed to what IT has been doing.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
Jolly
|
Apr 6 2009, 05:43 PM
Post #93
|
- Posts:
- 47,540
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 08:31 AM
- Mark
- Apr 6 2009, 08:26 AM
I think I may not have made my point very clear.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, registration of gun owners is only the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment.
Concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. The default is that we are allowed, by the constitution to keep and "bear" (to carry on one's person) arms. There is nothing in that statement that says "as long as the government knows who you are and keeps a record of it".
Oh, by the way? The Constitution doesn't mention handguns at all. It mentions "arms", which, at the time, were primarily rifles. Given that modern handguns didn't exist in the 18th century, we're all extrapolating about what the Framers' intent would have been on the subject of concealed weapons. Oh, horseshiite!
The term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon. Now, it might be a rifle, although muskets were probably more common as were fowling pieces. It would also include swords, sabers, cutlasses, knives, axes and tomahawks.
The Second Amendment would have been crystal clear to the men who wrote it. It is all about the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country.
|
|
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Apr 6 2009, 06:28 PM
Post #94
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 04:19 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 04:00 PM
And of course, all this is in reference to your wishful claim that "Since you still own the gun, it's not an infringement on ownership."
When I pointed out that in practice that is not the case, and that registered weapons have been confiscated by the State, you accuse me of not appreciating the theory and being a day late and a dollar short?
Try to at least follow your own argument, Quirt.
It's really hard having a discussion with you when you keep wandering off the point. We're talking THEORY. If the government seized unregistered weapons, that would change the nature of the hypothetical. It's not part of the hypothetical. You can't change the hypothetical and then argue that you're answering the original hypothetical. I know it's hard, because you are losing, but try to stick to the subject. And, just to remind you, here's the subject: a gun registration law, which punishes a gun owner for failing to register but doesn't take away his gun, is not an unconstitutional infringement on the right of gun ownership. If you want to keep looking silly, keep saying silly things.
- Quote:
-
We're talking THEORY. If the government seized unregistered weapons, that would change the nature of the hypothetical. It's not part of the hypothetical. You can't change the hypothetical and then argue that you're answering the original hypothetical.
No, we are not talking theory -- in fact the post that you responded to was explicitly about the actual practice of the state. You might have forgotten that you wrote "You have switched the argument from theory to practice." Even though I didn't switch the argument, and all of your claims about theory versus practice are your later little attempts to save ground, you obviously understood that the discussion was more broad than just your hypothetical little musings.
Also, you certainly strain reasonable discourse if you ask us to assume that a government that seizes REGISTERED weapons (as I have given evidence for) would not also seize UNREGISTERED ones. And furthermore, have you ever heard of someone being allowed to keep unregistered weapons when found in states that require registration? That is what your argument assumes. It really doesn't matter much to me if a state theoretically would have to return a gun when in practice it does not return the gun. You might think that the right to a grievance against the state protects your rights and makes every OK, but I would suspect that you are in the minority on that one.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
jon-nyc
|
Apr 7 2009, 04:12 AM
Post #95
|
- Posts:
- 54,369
- Group:
- Moderators
- Member
- #119
- Joined:
- April 22, 2005
|
- 1hp
- Apr 6 2009, 07:55 AM
But this is arguing that the stress tests aren't stressful enough (a claim I've read elsewhere too). It doesn't quite fit the conspiracy theory thesis that Obama is going to use them to refuse TARP returns so that he can control the banks.
|
|
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 7 2009, 04:22 AM
Post #96
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- Jolly
- Apr 6 2009, 05:43 PM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 08:31 AM
- Mark
- Apr 6 2009, 08:26 AM
I think I may not have made my point very clear.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, registration of gun owners is only the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment.
Concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. The default is that we are allowed, by the constitution to keep and "bear" (to carry on one's person) arms. There is nothing in that statement that says "as long as the government knows who you are and keeps a record of it".
Oh, by the way? The Constitution doesn't mention handguns at all. It mentions "arms", which, at the time, were primarily rifles. Given that modern handguns didn't exist in the 18th century, we're all extrapolating about what the Framers' intent would have been on the subject of concealed weapons.
Oh, horseshiite! The term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon. Now, it might be a rifle, although muskets were probably more common as were fowling pieces. It would also include swords, sabers, cutlasses, knives, axes and tomahawks. The Second Amendment would have been crystal clear to the men who wrote it. It is all about the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country. Really?
Is an Uzi "arms"?
Is a rocket-powered grenade launcher "arms"?
How about a surface-to-air missile launcher?
How about a nuclear warhead?
Where do you draw a principled line? After all, you've said that it's all about "the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country." All of those could be used to defend your country.
You also suggest that "[t]he term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon." Did a person of the day have rocket-powered grenade launchers? How about Tasers? And, by the way, where in the Constitution do you find the elaboration that "[t]he term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon"? Because that seems like the kind of revisionist "interpretation" that you screech about whenever a liberal tries to do it.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 7 2009, 04:23 AM
Post #97
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 06:28 PM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 04:19 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 6 2009, 04:00 PM
And of course, all this is in reference to your wishful claim that "Since you still own the gun, it's not an infringement on ownership."
When I pointed out that in practice that is not the case, and that registered weapons have been confiscated by the State, you accuse me of not appreciating the theory and being a day late and a dollar short?
Try to at least follow your own argument, Quirt.
It's really hard having a discussion with you when you keep wandering off the point. We're talking THEORY. If the government seized unregistered weapons, that would change the nature of the hypothetical. It's not part of the hypothetical. You can't change the hypothetical and then argue that you're answering the original hypothetical. I know it's hard, because you are losing, but try to stick to the subject. And, just to remind you, here's the subject: a gun registration law, which punishes a gun owner for failing to register but doesn't take away his gun, is not an unconstitutional infringement on the right of gun ownership.
If you want to keep looking silly, keep saying silly things. - Quote:
-
We're talking THEORY. If the government seized unregistered weapons, that would change the nature of the hypothetical. It's not part of the hypothetical. You can't change the hypothetical and then argue that you're answering the original hypothetical.
No, we are not talking theory -- in fact the post that you responded to was explicitly about the actual practice of the state. You might have forgotten that you wrote "You have switched the argument from theory to practice." Even though I didn't switch the argument, and all of your claims about theory versus practice are your later little attempts to save ground, you obviously understood that the discussion was more broad than just your hypothetical little musings. Also, you certainly strain reasonable discourse if you ask us to assume that a government that seizes REGISTERED weapons (as I have given evidence for) would not also seize UNREGISTERED ones. And furthermore, have you ever heard of someone being allowed to keep unregistered weapons when found in states that require registration? That is what your argument assumes. It really doesn't matter much to me if a state theoretically would have to return a gun when in practice it does not return the gun. You might think that the right to a grievance against the state protects your rights and makes every OK, but I would suspect that you are in the minority on that one. I've been talking theory since the beginning ... what COULD pass muster under the Constitution. If you are unable to stick to the subject, it's not my problem.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
Frank_W
|
Apr 7 2009, 04:26 AM
Post #98
|
- Posts:
- 43,949
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #381
- Joined:
- September 6, 2006
|
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 7 2009, 04:22 AM
- Jolly
- Apr 6 2009, 05:43 PM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 08:31 AM
- Mark
- Apr 6 2009, 08:26 AM
I think I may not have made my point very clear.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, registration of gun owners is only the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment.
Concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. The default is that we are allowed, by the constitution to keep and "bear" (to carry on one's person) arms. There is nothing in that statement that says "as long as the government knows who you are and keeps a record of it".
Oh, by the way? The Constitution doesn't mention handguns at all. It mentions "arms", which, at the time, were primarily rifles. Given that modern handguns didn't exist in the 18th century, we're all extrapolating about what the Framers' intent would have been on the subject of concealed weapons.
Oh, horseshiite! The term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon. Now, it might be a rifle, although muskets were probably more common as were fowling pieces. It would also include swords, sabers, cutlasses, knives, axes and tomahawks. The Second Amendment would have been crystal clear to the men who wrote it. It is all about the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country.
Really? Is an Uzi "arms"? Is a rocket-powered grenade launcher "arms"? How about a surface-to-air missile launcher? How about a nuclear warhead? Where do you draw a principled line? After all, you've said that it's all about "the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country." All of those could be used to defend your country. You also suggest that "[t]he term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon." Did a person of the day have rocket-powered grenade launchers? How about Tasers? And, by the way, where in the Constitution do you find the elaboration that "[t]he term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon"? Because that seems like the kind of revisionist "interpretation" that you screech about whenever a liberal tries to do it. Back then, there were revolvers and rifles. I think that's a pretty decent place to draw the line. Handguns and rifles.
(And if my neighbor wants to buy an AK-47 and an M-16, more power to 'im.)
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 7 2009, 04:29 AM
Post #99
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
- Frank_W
- Apr 7 2009, 04:26 AM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 7 2009, 04:22 AM
- Jolly
- Apr 6 2009, 05:43 PM
- QuirtEvans
- Apr 6 2009, 08:31 AM
- Mark
- Apr 6 2009, 08:26 AM
I think I may not have made my point very clear.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, registration of gun owners is only the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment.
Concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. The default is that we are allowed, by the constitution to keep and "bear" (to carry on one's person) arms. There is nothing in that statement that says "as long as the government knows who you are and keeps a record of it".
Oh, by the way? The Constitution doesn't mention handguns at all. It mentions "arms", which, at the time, were primarily rifles. Given that modern handguns didn't exist in the 18th century, we're all extrapolating about what the Framers' intent would have been on the subject of concealed weapons.
Oh, horseshiite! The term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon. Now, it might be a rifle, although muskets were probably more common as were fowling pieces. It would also include swords, sabers, cutlasses, knives, axes and tomahawks. The Second Amendment would have been crystal clear to the men who wrote it. It is all about the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country.
Really? Is an Uzi "arms"? Is a rocket-powered grenade launcher "arms"? How about a surface-to-air missile launcher? How about a nuclear warhead? Where do you draw a principled line? After all, you've said that it's all about "the right to defense of one's person, one's family and one's country." All of those could be used to defend your country. You also suggest that "[t]he term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon." Did a person of the day have rocket-powered grenade launchers? How about Tasers? And, by the way, where in the Constitution do you find the elaboration that "[t]he term "arms" is anything a person of the day would use as a personal weapon"? Because that seems like the kind of revisionist "interpretation" that you screech about whenever a liberal tries to do it.
Back then, there were revolvers and rifles. I think that's a pretty decent place to draw the line. Handguns and rifles. (And if my neighbor wants to buy an AK-47 and an M-16, more power to 'im.)  There were revolvers in the 18th century? I thought the revolver was invented by Colt maybe 100 years later.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
Apr 7 2009, 04:31 AM
Post #100
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
Hmm, I guess it depends on what you mean by "revolver".
- Quote:
-
In the development of firearms, an important limiting factor was the time it took to reload the weapon after it was fired. While the user was reloading, the weapon was nearly useless, and an adversary might be able to take advantage of the situation and kill or wound the user. Several approaches to the problem of increasing the rate of fire were developed, the earliest being multi-barreled weapons which allowed two or more shots without reloading. The first revolvers were partly an attempt to improve on pepper-box type weapons, which used a revolving cylinder with one set of firing mechanisms, but which had multiple barrels as well. Firing through a single barrel saved the expense and weight of having the multiple barrels of the pepper-box.
The earliest example of a revolver is a revolving arquebus, produced by Hans Stopler in 1597.[5] Another early specimen, now in the Tower of London armories, is dated to the middle 1600s and attributed to John Dafte of London. This example, a flintlock, uses a single lock, with a flash pan for each of the six chambers. The cylinder is rotated by hand, and locks in place for firing. This was still not perfected, however, as it was apparently destroyed by a misfire.[6]
James Puckle patented a revolving chamber gun in 1718. This gun, which had a 1.25 inch bore (30 mm) was tripod mounted, and the 11 shot cylinder was operated by a hand crank. It is often cited as the first machine gun. By changing cylinders to reload (an early example of a speedloader), the gun was fired and reloaded to fire a total of 63 rounds in 7 minutes.[7] Elisha Collier patented a flintlock revolver in Britain in 1818, and significant numbers were being produced in London by 1822.
In 1836, Samuel Colt patented a revolver mechanism that led to the widespread use of the revolver. According to Samuel Colt, he came up with the idea for the revolver while at sea, inspired by the capstan winch, which had a ratchet and pawl mechanism on it, a version of which was used in his guns to rotate the cylinder. Revolvers proliferated largely due to Colt's ability as a salesman. Revolvers have remained popular to the present day in many areas, although in the military and law enforcement they have largely been supplanted by magazine-fed semi-automatic pistols such as the Colt M1911, especially in circumstances where reload time and higher cartridge capacity are deemed important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |