Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Vuryaes]

Not only am I in favor of gun control, I am in favor of the abolition of the entire second amendment.

While the liberals agree that the founding fathers were good in deed by creating the country, consitution, and amendments, they want an amendment completely destroyed. This appalls me.

The founding fathers created the amendments for a reason- to establish permanent laws and rights that help keep our society in order in future generations. Do you really feel that you have the right to counter these (very!) basic rights that were created for this exact purpose?

Through the 1980s, the 2nd amendment was interpreted as States having their own militias.

[Big Jim P]

While the liberals agree that the founding fathers were good in deed by creating the country, consitution, and amendments, they want an amendment completely destroyed. This appalls me.

The founding fathers created the amendments for a reason- to establish permanent laws and rights that help keep our society in order in future generations. Do you really feel that you have the right to counter these (very!) basic rights that were created for this exact purpose?

Through the 1980s, the 2nd amendment was interpreted as States having their own militias.

Which is every able-bodied adult capable of bearing arms.

[Vuryaes]

Blunt objects can't be used with precision accuracy a football field away. You can safely run away from blunt objects.

Still haven't answered "how"?

Edit: Or you could use a firearm to defend yourself against an attack with a knife, blunt object or bare hands.

You seem to have forgotten the entire smart guns debate we just had. And you forget about Trayvon Martin.

[Vuryaes]

Through the 1980s, the 2nd amendment was interpreted as States having their own militias.

Which is every able-bodied adult capable of bearing arms.

Such as the National Guard

[Big Jim P]

Which is every able-bodied adult capable of bearing arms.

Such as the National Guard

Membership in such is not mandatory.

[Cognigotoapagawayiagan]

How? And even if you did, what about knives? Blunt objects? bare hands?

Blunt objects can't be used with precision accuracy a football field away. You can safely run away from blunt objects.

Well, if the government were to confiscate a gun from a criminal's hands, they would need to be close enough to them that they would be in range of a blunt object. So then the only solution would be to shoot the criminal, and the liberals don't want that either.

Liberals make me sad.

[Big Jim P]

Still haven't answered "how"?

Edit: Or you could use a firearm to defend yourself against an attack with a knife, blunt object or bare hands.

You seem to have forgotten the entire smart guns debate we just had. And you forget about Trayvon Martin.

No, I forgot nothing. Smart guns will not take guns out of criminal hands, and what about Trayvon Martin?

[Big Jim P]

Blunt objects can't be used with precision accuracy a football field away. You can safely run away from blunt objects.

Well, if the government were to confiscate a gun from a criminal's hands, they would need to be close enough to them that they would be in range of a blunt object. So then the only solution would be to shoot the criminal, and the liberals don't want that either.

Liberals make me sad.

Indeed.

[Cognigotoapagawayiagan]

Which is every able-bodied adult capable of bearing arms.

Such as the National Guard

The National Guard and what Big Jim P is talking about are two completely seperate things.

[Big Jim P]

Such as the National Guard

The National Guard and what Big Jim P is talking about are two completely seperate things.

Ja. Every able bodied adult capable of bearing arms has nothing to do with their being part of any organization.

[Vuryaes]

Such as the National Guard

Membership in such is not mandatory.

That's why it's called a right

[Vuryaes]

You seem to have forgotten the entire smart guns debate we just had. And you forget about Trayvon Martin.

No, I forgot nothing. Smart guns will not take guns out of criminal hands, and what about Trayvon Martin?

That's just a case of a man defending himself" with a gun because somebody else was using their bare hands. And why are you against smart guns?

[Vuryaes]

Such as the National Guard

The National Guard and what Big Jim P is talking about are two completely seperate things.

Not true. The courts interpreted the 2nd amendment as a right for states through the 1980s.

[Spirit of Hope]

The National Guard and what Big Jim P is talking about are two completely seperate things.

Not true. The courts interpreted the 2nd amendment as a right for states through the 1980s.

And As of Heller vs. DC the National Guard is no longer considered to be the "militia" talked about in the second amendment. Plus in original publications from the time of the foundation militia= all able bodied men. To the point where militia membership = voter eligibility.

[Vuryaes]

Not true. The courts interpreted the 2nd amendment as a right for states through the 1980s.

And As of Heller vs. DC the National Guard is no longer considered to be the "militia" talked about in the second amendment. Plus in original publications from the time of the foundation militia= all able bodied men. To the point where militia membership = voter eligibility.

Also from documents at the time:
One Black Man=3/5 a vote
Women=0/5 a vote
Gun=Musket

[Big Jim P]

No, I forgot nothing. Smart guns will not take guns out of criminal hands, and what about Trayvon Martin?

That's just a case of a man defending himself" with a gun because somebody else was using their bare hands. And why are you against smart guns?

I am not against smart guns. I just prefer not to own them.

[Big Jim P]

And As of Heller vs. DC the National Guard is no longer considered to be the "militia" talked about in the second amendment. Plus in original publications from the time of the foundation militia= all able bodied men. To the point where militia membership = voter eligibility.

Also from documents at the time:
One Black Man=3/5 a vote
Women=0/5 a vote
Gun=Musket

Arms="in common military use".

[Vuryaes]

That's just a case of a man defending himself" with a gun because somebody else was using their bare hands. And why are you against smart guns?

I am not against smart guns. I just prefer not to own them.

I'm not forcing you to own any. I, like you, just want to ensure the safety of our country's people.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I am not against smart guns. I just prefer not to own them.

I'm not forcing you to own any. I, like you, just want to ensure the safety of our country's people.

By doing what exactly?

[Vuryaes]

I'm not forcing you to own any. I, like you, just want to ensure the safety of our country's people.

By doing what exactly?

Wider use of smart guns by people willing to try them.

[Paddy O Fernature]

By doing what exactly?

Wider use of smart guns by people willing to try them.

Good luck with that.

[Spirit of Hope]

And As of Heller vs. DC the National Guard is no longer considered to be the "militia" talked about in the second amendment. Plus in original publications from the time of the foundation militia= all able bodied men. To the point where militia membership = voter eligibility.

Also from documents at the time:
One Black Man=3/5 a vote
Women=0/5 a vote
Gun=Musket

Yes, but the definition of the word at the time was militia=all able bodied men. A cornerstone of US constitutional law is that the document must be interpreted as the definitions exist at the time. You can not use different definitions to change the date, otherwise congress could easily amend the constitution as they saw fit.

Documents of the time didn't define a man of african american decent as =3/5 of a vote. That was a compromise over how many representatives the southern states should receive based on their non voting population.

Women weren't denied the vote by definition but by explicit law. And in some areas could vote if they were a widow with property.

Arm=musket=cannon=sword. The US was the place to arm a merchantman to fight against pirates because the US didn't regulate cannons at the time.

[Big Jim P]

I am not against smart guns. I just prefer not to own them.

I'm not forcing you to own any. I, like you, just want to ensure the safety of our country's people.

Responsible (read smart) gun ownership does exactly that.

[Vuryaes]

I'm not forcing you to own any. I, like you, just want to ensure the safety of our country's people.

Responsible (read smart) gun ownership does exactly that.

I agree, I just want irresponsible ownership eradicated.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I'm not forcing you to own any. I, like you, just want to ensure the safety of our country's people.

Responsible (read smart) gun ownership does exactly that.

Besides, simple trigger locks are a extremely cost effective means to accomplish what "Smart" guns are attempting to do, and are more economical, practical, and cost effective to boot.