I can get to grips with guns for sport and hunting but fail to understand the need for automatic or semi automatic army jobs . Weapons like these should never end up in the hands of the public.
Bob
Bob
Is it possible........
- Thread starter Mark Pickford
- Start date
Which is what this thread was intended to discuss, hence the challenge not to bring 'rights' into it.
I had a 410 shotgun at age 11. My Grandfather had an 1879 Martini-Henry Carbine converted for me, which reportedly had seen use in the Zulu Wars! Not sure it had seen action, but I used to like to think it had. Not sure why now, as that seems a little gruesome to me now!
I used to wander his farm all cammo'd up and built various hides, in which to wait patiently all day, for my prey.
Is this similar to being given a loaded Bazooka, or an Uzi? I think not. I was given copious instruction on the use and proper maintenance of the gun, to encourage a healthy respect for it and the dangers.
OK, I was still just a kid, with a lethal weapon.
I was hoping this thread would encourage a discussion about reality, not rights. The reality of life, consequences and respect. It isn't a question of Burgers and Bullets, advertising military hardware for rent with pictures of Rambo and other assorted Hollywood BS glamorizing weapons and encouraging people to act like bloody irresponsible idiots.
Do I think guns should be banned? NO
So I guess the quandary is where do we as (hopefully) reasonable people, think the lines should be drawn? Hiding behind the Constitution to excuse or justify the fact that the lunatics have taken over the Asylum, is surely not going to help those who want to protect their right to bear arms.
Again, I am frustrated by the complete and utter entrenchment of American views. No matter the topic, it always comes down to Left Vs Right.
It doesn't matter what a document from the 1800's says, it is more important how we approach life as a community. Unless even the pro-gun camp can stop declaring a 'right' and look to policing the situation more sensibly, ultimately you know whom will win? The Left. If there aren't already, there will soon be more of them!
So, do we simply excuse the moron because he has the right to be a moron, or do we start to act like we care more about the whole, than we do our own, individual rights?
Just wondering how other 'feel' about it, without polarizing
PeteB
GT40s Supporter
There are plenty of people "on the left" who would love to see our cars banned. There's no reason an average person needs to own a car with 500hp that can easily grossly exceed the speed limit. There's plenty of clips on Youtube of people being morons on the street in high power cars and endangering innocent bystanders.
Howard Jones
Supporter
In reference to the pictures, seams just about right to me.
I feel like our "pendulum" has swung with the polarization of the political atmosphere here in the U.S. I quoted your statement above, Mark, because it is the "holy grail" I constantly preach here in our political discussions. In our country, what is best for the majority of our population is USUALLY what is best for our society....that is not to say that individual rights are not important, and as Americans we must attempt to protect those rights, but in the end I have always felt that individual rights should take a back seat to whatever is best for the "whole". In this case, that young girl MAY have had the right to fire that gun simply because there have been no laws passed limiting the age range for gun usage, but in what universe does a parent believe that it is RIGHT to put a fully automatic weapon in the hands of a child that young, female OR male?
There are a few FUNDAMENTALISTS here on the forum who would like a rigid interpretation of the issue according to the body of the Constitution, much as many religious zealots feel that the words of the bible should be taken literally. The problem with extending that philosophy to these political discussions is that even the forefathers who authored our Constitution recognized that as things changed in the future there would need to be adjustments to the manner in which our country approached restrictions to a lot of issues...free speech....rights of gun ownership...those issues are both AMENDMENTS to that very basic framework for our guidelines, the Constitution. So, by establishing the methodology by which the Constitution could be altered (amended) the founding forefathers set the mechanism for future revisions...to insist that the Constitution be interpreted as rigidly as the fundamentalists believe is the case would not have appeared to be the intent of the founding forefathers, IMHO. Jim is right, too, about the judicial system's impact on the manner in which our laws are interpreted, yet another "check and balance" system implemented during the birth of our great nation.
In my field of specialization (Special Education) students with educational disorders have rights because they have been granted those rights by congressional action. The students without educational disorders do not have the same rights...nobody has ANY rights until those rights are assigned/granted. It is that reason that I believe that we SHOULD have a minimum age at which our children should be allowed to handle potentially lethal weapons, just as we restrict our children from operating a potentially lethal automobile until they are of an age at which they can be expected to exercise reasonable caution. In this case, since there has not been any designation of rights, it is my opinion that the judgement of the parents in this case is the problem...NOBODY of that age should have an automatic weapon in their hands, and we have the parents to blame for what happened. The instructor gave the girl the instructions he would have given any adult and the gun simply overpowered a weaker, younger individual. Should the instructor have exercised greater caution? That's not my call, but the parents most assuredly should have, IMHO.
Doug
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Doug++++
Larry,
So in your world, where the Constitution is like the Coran, taken litterly, you see no problem with anyone, including kids carrying any gun anywhere, any time they want.
So Larry, you would insist on these kids "right" to board and aircraft with your loved ones?
Does anyone else share Larrys views?
Larry,
So in your world, where the Constitution is like the Coran, taken litterly, you see no problem with anyone, including kids carrying any gun anywhere, any time they want.
So Larry, you would insist on these kids "right" to board and aircraft with your loved ones?
Does anyone else share Larrys views?
Karl Marx '101'.
As I said B4 - if The Founders had "intended" that there be limits on the right to keep and bear arms, they'd have listed them right there on the spot. Likewise, had they felt it would be 'just fine' for those rights to be 'limited', or that they should 'expire' at some time in the future, they would have included something like this in the text of the 2nd Amendment: "If at some time in the future, congress decides the right to keep and bear arms is no longer needed for whatever reason, or that the rights thereunder should be limited, congress shall have full authority empliment such changes." But, they didn't, did they. INSTEAD they stated: " 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." 'Not "shouldn't be", or "ought not be" - 'SHALL NOT be infringed. That's pretty darned CLEAR AND DEFINATE, wouldn't you say? (And yet govt defies that directive every day.)
There you go! Changing or tossing out the 2nd Amendment via another amendment is the o-n-l-y constitutional way that the right to keep and bear can be altered/eliminated...NOT by passing laws that infringe.
Good luck passing that new amendment.
Your Friendly Local FUNDAMENTALIST
Karl Marx '101'.
As I said B4 - if The Founders had "intended" that there be limits on the right to keep and bear arms, they'd have listed them right there on the spot. Likewise, had they felt it would be 'just fine' for those rights to be 'limited', or that they should 'expire' at some time in the future, they would have included something like this in the text of the 2nd Amendment: "If at some time in the future, congress decides the right to keep and bear arms is no longer needed for whatever reason, or that the rights thereunder should be limited, congress shall have full authority empliment such changes." But, they didn't, did they. INSTEAD they stated: " 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." 'Not "shouldn't be", or "ought not be" - 'SHALL NOT be infringed. That's pretty darned CLEAR AND DEFINATE, wouldn't you say? (And yet govt defies that directive every day.)
There you go! Changing or tossing out the 2nd Amendment via another amendment is the o-n-l-y constitutional way that the right to keep and bear can be altered/eliminated...NOT by passing laws that infringe.
Good luck passing that new amendment.
Your Friendly Local FUNDAMENTALIST
Larry like most things written hundreds of years ago the amendments are way out of date . I dont think they were written in the knowledge the streets would be crawling with arsehole`s brandishing the same hardware as the military.
Bob
Correct, Larry, but taken out of context. Keep in mind the colonies had already declared themselves independent from British rule and the Brits had essentially said "Oh, no, you aren't! Furthermore, we intend to enforce out position by dispatching OUR MILITIA across the Atlantic to make sure you obey our rules." That is what initiated our American Revolution. Once we sent the Brits home licking their wounds and our forefathers decided to ensure that our NEWLY independent country had a framework to ensure we could fight off future attempts to reverse our good fortune, they wrote the constitution. IF you believe that the body of the Constitution should be the guiding document and that the subsequent AMMENDMENTS are moot, than please let us know where in the body of the constitution it authorizes private citizens to own weapons. Good luck finding that!
Furthermore, at the time in history the constitution was written, the colonies had no military "arm"...all resistance to the efforts of the Brits to curtail our independence had been through private volunteer efforts. The need to maintain a military presence was RECOGNIZED and the first ammendment was enacted to make sure that those private citizens were able to maintain their weapons so future invasions could be curtailed. When the establishment of a national military came about, which was armed by government funds, the need to arm the population to ensure that we had the ability to fight off invasions ceased to exist.
So...yes, we NEED a national military presence (a militia)...and nobody should attempt to keep that militia from being adequately supplied, so the first ammendment was enacted. It's all about the military, not about private individuals...never was. The ammendment itself says so.
Sure wish you could have had Fred Staker as a history/government teacher :thumbsup:
As for getting rid of the Second Ammendment, there is a mechanism in place, it's called "repeal"...it is what happened to the 21st Ammendment. We don't need ANOTHER Ammendment. I would propose that if the MAJORITY of our population ever becomes convinced that the Second Ammendment is no longer needed, it could fall by the wayside much as the 21st did...and IMHO it would not take too many BONEHEADED moves like the one about which this discussion was originated to perhaps make that happen. If those who hold radical ideas about the 2nd ammendment granting an UNLIMITED right to arms do not control themselves, how long will it take for our citizens to decide there must be laws to control gun usage...once that happens the NRA will not have enough $$$ or influence to stop that freight-train!!!
There are many changes occurring in our society about which I am in disagreement...we cannot stop change, though, whenever the MAJORITY of our population decides the change is necessary. The repeal of the 21st Ammendment to our constitution proved that. Let's hope the gun-crazed community in our country does not determine that a change/repeal to the 2nd ammendment is necessary.
Doug
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Larry,
So in your world, where the Constitution is like the Coran, taken litterly, you see no problem with anyone, including kids carrying any gun anywhere, any time they want.
So Larry, you would insist on these kids "right" to board and aircraft with your loved ones?
Does anyone else share Larrys views?
Larry,
Its a simple question, would you insist that these kids have the "right" to board a flight at LAX armed with automatic weapons?
Last edited:
'OBFUSCATION AGAIN, Jim.
My view is (and logic dictates) constitutional "rights" were intended for, and apply to adults (or minors very near to adulthood)...as is evidenced by the fact that infants aren't even able to "peacefully assemble", "know what I mean, Vern"??? ('too old an 'ad' reference there, perhaps?) I would think that view would be a "given" for any rational person.
Anyway, nice try...
(Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeze...)
Those are very tired songs that are neither here-nor-there, guys. Read the Federalist Papers.
BTW - I'd forgotten about the "repeal" process, Doug. Thanks for the reminder. But, good luck trying to go that route as well.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Mark I can see you shaking your head from here. Forget it.:shrug:
Howard Jones
Supporter
That's a stupid question Jim, do you thing we are stupid? You know damn well why every intelligent adult person in this county knows why you can't take guns on airplanes. Is this REALLY what you think this thread is about?
Come-on buddy elevate the discussion. Things are dumbed down enough already, don't you think.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Howie,
You are oh so wrong little buddy...
Every time this type of discussion comes up Larry goes into his rant about absolutes....
He goes on and on about how there are absolutely positively no limits in the right to bear arms.
Time after time, we all have to stop and explain to him once again about how Society and laws work.
Well this is a great day, that photo and that question may have seemed "stupid" to you, but Larry, for the very first time has drawn a line, limiting the right to bear arms!
Apparently Larry draws the line at heavely armed Arab children, I'm still not sure if he is OK with heavely armed Arab adults boarding a plane.
The long slippery slide has begun.
You are oh so wrong little buddy...
Every time this type of discussion comes up Larry goes into his rant about absolutes....
He goes on and on about how there are absolutely positively no limits in the right to bear arms.
Time after time, we all have to stop and explain to him once again about how Society and laws work.
Well this is a great day, that photo and that question may have seemed "stupid" to you, but Larry, for the very first time has drawn a line, limiting the right to bear arms!
Apparently Larry draws the line at heavely armed Arab children, I'm still not sure if he is OK with heavely armed Arab adults boarding a plane.
The long slippery slide has begun.
Last edited:
I have no interest in repealing the 2nd Amendment, Larry...I like the idea that our military forces will have the equipment they might need to repel any invasion (except, obviously, an UNARMED invasion, like the one we are experiencing at our southern border with Mexico...and I am almost to the point where I believe that armed border agents SHOULD be used to repel that invasion.)
As for private citizens owning firearms...I own four myself...a .22 rifle, a .410 shotgun, a 12 gauge shotgun, and a family heirloom 32 pistol that was used successfully to repel a thief who invaded the chicken coop back in the 1880's (I have never been informed as to whether he left under his own power or they carried him out, but either way the .32 WAS effective in protecting the poultry). I no longer hunt...did a lot as a younger man...but I do value the right to own my own firearms, if for no other reason than that I might decide to resume recreational hunting once I live in SW Kansas again.
As for using arms to provide protection to the country...that's what the MILITIA is all about...ergo that's what the 2nd amendment is all about, not private firearm ownership. That's not to say that some judge somewhere along the line hasn't rendered a judgement that the 2nd Amendment was meant to provide that protection to individual citizens, too, I just don't see it in the 2nd Amendment when I read that.
As for the Federalist papers...please don't hold your breath, they are old ideas from a time when life was very different. I can assure you I would not be likely to endorse applying the issues raised at that time in today's very different society.
Need an example? Do you think the founding fathers ever envisioned weapons that could fire multiple rounds within a second with a single pull of the trigger? Do you think the founding fathers ever envisioned rockets, much less drones that could be used to deploy them remotely (remember that the Wright brothers had not even taken their first flight yet)? Do you think the founding fathers, who relied on private citizens to grab their weapons and fight for freedom against the invading British army, ever even envisioned a military establishment of the size and complexity as the one we have now? I doubt seriously any of those individuals could have predicted how different life in the USA would be 240 years down the road. Their primary concern was that a MILITIA be organized and equipped with weapons to repel armed invasions by other countries.
Cheers!
Doug
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Larry like most things written hundreds of years ago the amendments are way out of date . I dont think they were written in the knowledge the streets would be crawling with arsehole`s brandishing the same hardware as the military.
I agree. On this one, technology has outstripped the Founding Fathers' intent. Sorry, Larry, but any one of those kids in the photo could hold off and annihilate a regiment of redcoats. I don't think the old boys reckoned with that.
I agree. On this one, technology has outstripped the Founding Fathers' intent. Sorry, Larry, but any one of those kids in the photo could hold off and annihilate a regiment of redcoats. I don't think the old boys reckoned with that.
If that had in fact been their view, Doug, it's faaaaaaar more likely they'd have written: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of MILITIA MEMBERS to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
But, they didn't, did they. They said "the right of THE PEOPLE." IF you read the Federalist Papers that some of you so readily dismiss as being irrelevant, you'd discover the actual concern the 2nd Amend was intended to address was that the people be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical U.S. government going forward. (And to your point, Jim, "the people" couldn't even begin to do that w/o arms equal to that of the govt's "boots on the ground".) (And, please, let's not bring up TANKS AND B-52s. Sheeeze.)
The Founders were neither a stupid nor uneducated lot. They were arguably THEE brightest people who ever lived in this country. If they had meant anything other than what they wrote - they'd have written it.
Last edited:
