Another member of the well regulated militia

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonToRetire Dex, if the words "gun control" are equivalent to "abortion control" I suppose there is a lot of baggage that naturally arises, and I should be more sensitive to that. I've explained what I mean by gun control, and perhaps I should have used other words but not sure any two words would tell the story. I used enlightened laws before and that didn't do it... maybe gun responsibility? let's retire (and dex) I can't conceive of laws that would become so stringent as to make gun ownership nearly impossible. If that were to happen, the 2nd amendment would be so violated that the Supreme Court would be completely ineffective, and we would have a lot of other problems. My ideal would be a gun license similar to auto licensing, along with gun registration, or even bullet identification, which can be accomplished with modern technology. A sportsman or any law abiding citizen should have no problem with that, in fact, they should welcome it as a way of elevating the handling and ownership of guns to a professional level. I was an expert marksman in the military and was pretty proud of that. I thought I could take care of a weapon and hit my mark even with lots of things going on around me. It makes me sick to think of some good for nothing punk being able to buy a gun with almost no verification and acting out their sick little aggressions. I live close to DC and there are parts of our nation's capital I will not go into at night. If I packed a gun I think I could handle myself in a fair fight against these hoods but the best marksman doesn't do well with a bullet in the back. Or sitting in a classroom trying to get an education. Or sitting in an office at work. Let's keep guns in the hands of rightful owners, but let's make it hard as hell for the irresponsible, the insane, the gutter punks to use guns as a substitute for the manhood (or womanhood) they lack.

I got your concept now. I was trying to give an insight into why "Gun Control" is such a hot button. I don't disagree with your idea in concept. The question is this then? If the licencing concept you are proposing were to be enacted couldn't that then be expanded to other items in the Bill of Rights? The if the gun control licence is so that guns are used by sane informed people who don't hurt other people. Couldn't this idea be expanded to other Bill of Rights clauses. For example, freedom of speach - if used improperly it can ruin people. And, laws do tend to gain wider coverage.

[bssc]

[quote=saluki9 ]
You are missing the point. I didn't need the NRA to tell me to write Zumbo's sponsors to tell them to fire him. Zumbo called certain weapons "terrorist weapons" and associated people who shoot them with terrorist. It was ignorant, and it spit in the face of the people that paid his salary. I'm sure you're familiar of the phrase "don't sh!t where you eat" well that is exactly what he did and he got what he deserved which was a reputation of 30+ year ruined in one night[\quote]
What I saw is someone trying to make a distinction between someone who hunted with a semi-automatic rifle and an automatic rifle, specifically an AK-47. I didn't see the Communist Chinese and Eastern European as his sponsors. What I did see is someone who attempted to make a distinction between one type of weapon and another get attacked for trying to make the distinction. It seemed like a very knee jerk reaction.

[quote]
As for gun control. As a conservative when I hear that I feel the same way a liberal does when they here "free speech zones" "president George W Bush" etc. [\quote]I had not heard "free speech zones" however, I do know that if I mention Bush around my parents, who are very liberal, it will set them off. The same is true with the war in Iraqi. My dad is retired 1st Cav and has very strong opinions about what is going on over there. As mentioned above, abortion controls are another. On the other hand, neither of them can stand Hillary Clinton, probably because they have lived in Washington for the last 30 years so I know I can upset them by saying President Hillary.

Quote:

If it weren't for the political greed of the left there might actually be more gun control. The problem is that in their minds there is never enough "common sense" gun control. First it's one step, then once we have that, ban something else, make another law and on and on. I'm thankful they have been so greedy, hopefully nobody will want to touch it now.

I agree completely. It seems as if the left wants to ban all guns while the right wants no prohibitions.

[FinallyRetired]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex For example, freedom of speach - if used improperly it can ruin people. And, laws do tend to gain wider coverage.

Well, it's a matter of degree, you know the old saying about sticks and stones. But yes, speech can ruin people and we have laws against libel, slander, and hate speech. We also prevent some people from speaking in certain venues, for example, the FCC can pull station licenses, and look how Imus was pulled off the air by the network. I don't think there are any absolute rights, your rights stop where my nose begins. I will defend your rights until they begin infringing on mine. I don't have an issue with gun owners in general if they are using their guns for self protection or sporting. I have an issue with nutcases who point guns at my face, and would take action to keep them from having that gun. Analogously, I don't have a problem with people speaking their free minds, but would take action against someone who yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who even demonstrated a tendency to do that.

[ladelfina]

The issue of control in a free society is tough.. I was just in an e-mail argument with right-wing sis. She thinks the Prescription Drug databases (now in 33 states near you) that are coordinated and can be examined by the Federal government are just hunky-dory.. Why SHOULDN't the Federal government have a database of the name of everyone who takes birth-control pills or buys minoxydil? What? do you have something to HIDE?

But say "gun control" and well, it's definitely a hair trigger..

I found this just recently:

Quote:

At the behest of the gun lobby, Congress attached riders to the last three appropriation bills for the ATF—the Tiarht Amendments —barring the ATF from sharing crime gun trace data with municipalities or local law enforcement, except for data relating to a specific crime. Yes, our “tough on crime” Republican Congress decided it would be a good idea to make it impossible for local police departments and city governments to analyze where the criminals in their communities are getting illegal guns. This provision makes it impossible for cities that bear the brunt of the illegal gun problem to either target their law enforcement resources effectively against illegal guns within their jurisdiction, or to identify the gun dealers outside their jurisdiction who are supplying illegal guns to their communities and seek to have their reckless behavior enjoined by the courts.

http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2...adly_negl.html

So.. private health care data should be shared..
Gun data on federally-licensed gun stores, no?

THAT's the "conservative" line these days?


I like SoontoRetire's idea of gun licensing and above all, TRAINING... We don't let people drive cars without education and mandatory exams of theory and capability.. but with guns it seems the most that's required is to fill out some paperwork that someone may look at down the line. Obviously not enough.

[ladelfina]

Oh goodness gracious.. this was too funny not to share:

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2007/0...hers-gosh.html

Quote:

BRING BACK THE BLACK PANTHERS! Gosh, the Perfesser sure is laying it on thick with the gun posts, isn't he? Columbine in the New River Valley really put the zap on his head. Clearly the poor man is suffering from Posse-Comitatus-itis, a disorder characterized by itchy trigger fingers. As long as the fit is on him, we will never hear the end of his plaintive cries for universal gun ownership -- by force if necessary.

"The Perfesser" is Glenn Reynolds, and his call for mandatory gun ownership in the NYT is here:
http://tinyurl.com/yldhjd

Quote:

Fortunately I know the cure: Bring back the Black Panthers! In the 60s there was no more outspoken group of gun-rights enthusiasts. The Panthers marched in state capitols, bravely brandishing their firearms in defiance of those that would take away their Second Amendment rights. No swifter cure for Posse-Comitatus-itis has been found! Soon open-carry laws were shutting down all over the place -- including California, where the sight of black folk with firearms worked so effectively on Governor Ronald Reagan's Posse-Comitatus-itis that he signed the Mulford Act. Displays of armed negritude will work like lightning on the Perfesser's condition, and on the cracker community he serves. Then we'll only have to think of ways to get him to shut up about everything else.

[FinallyRetired]

<Oh goodness gracious.. this was too funny not to share:>

The funniest things are those wrapped around a big grain of truth. As long as the inner city boys remain unorganized punks hooked on drugs and rap and shooting each other, the rest of us are fine with right to bear. But let them get organized and pose a threat to common decent folk and gun control here we come!

On a more serious note, today's hip hop culture is glorifying guns and shootings as a way of demonstrating manhood and power by those who lack one or both. Depending on which side of the bed I wake up on, I'm OK with that if it means they kill each other off. On the other side of the bed I think it's a very dangerous precedent and creates a reverse militia situation, one in which the bad guys may outgun the good guys. Then what do we do?

[bssc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonToRetire <Oh goodness gracious.. this was too funny not to share:> The funniest things are those wrapped around a big grain of truth. As long as the inner city boys remain unorganized punks hooked on drugs and rap and shooting each other, the rest of us are fine with right to bear. But let them get organized and pose a threat to common decent folk and gun control here we come!

One of the Supreme Court cases on the second amendment, Presser v. Illinois where Herman Presser was arrested for being part of an armed citizen militia group, the Lehr und Wehr Verein, associated with the Socialist Labor party. The militia was organized to counter the companies' private armies. Company armies, OK, but when the workers armed, it was time for gun control. My reading of the court's decision was that it was OK for the states to control weapons, not the Federal Government.

[Martha]

bssc, there is some question as to whether the Supreme Court would hold today that the second amendment doe not apply to state action. Logically, a conservative court would say no, but logic doesn't always apply. I am confident that justice Thomas would say that a state can do what it pleases to ban guns. I wouldn't make a call on what the court as a whole would do. The Supreme Court historically has not been very interested in the second amendment.

Off topic, but the first amendment doesn't apply to the states. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

So if a state wanted a state religion there is nothing in the US constitution to stop it from doing so. (However, most if not all states have in their constitutions a similiar clause.)

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Off topic, but the first amendment doesn't apply to the states. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances So if a state wanted a state religion there is nothing in the US constitution to stop it from doing so. (However, most if not all states have in their constitutions a similiar clause.)

Wouldn't the decisions concerning religon in schools modify this interpretation?

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRiP Guy However, as to this particular nutjob, I just read even more this AM about how his uncles and other relatives thought he was a sicko from way back, and needed intervention. He had a proper mental health authority determine he was a danger to himself and others.

An interesting point raised in the book "Mindhunter" is the problem with the USA mental health system is that much of it relies upon the patient to self medicate; provide information on themselves; self analyse. In other words the health professional relies upon the information provided by the patient and not through detailed observation or feedback from those in the patient's life.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bssc I would argue that the Second Amendment has not been interpreted by the courts to allow individuals to own guns.

The DC Circuit just issued a major decision overturning the DC ban on handguns. This decision very directly says the 2nd Amendment does allow individuals to own the types of guns a militiaman would need. As I read it, the decision essentially describes the militia clause as addressing the types of weapons that are covered by the "right" clause. The decison views the right as pre-existing and being affirmed by the amendment. As I posted elsewhere, the DC Circuit Decision is interesting reading if you want to gain some perspective on colonial era gun ownership, structure of militias, etc. It is likely that DC will ask the entire court to review this decision and will appeal it to the supremes if it is upheld. This is the one to watch for a final word on how the 2nd Amendment is limited by the militia clause.