Originally posted by yellowstone: There are pros and cons to almost everything and onions are usually (hopefully?) formed by weighing pros and cons against each other and coming to a conclusion.
I should shoot you, . Yes, opinions are formed. Guns - whether the right to own guns, or the right to bring one into play. Who should be making these decisions ? You seem to prefer "government". You seem to espouse a human is incapable. Despite the minuscule, infinitesimal percentage of things going wrong when legal gun owners wield their guns. Your answer is that government should stop any chance of things going wrong by banning guns, . They couldn't even win the war on drugs.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone: In terms of individual gun ownership pros and cons can be (not an exhaustive list):
Pros - Personal protection, sense of security and protection, deterrent - Defense against a potentially dictatorial government - Increased chances of survival in case of a Zombie apocalypse - Hunting - ...
Cons - Increased risk for accidents - Increased risk for impulse suicides - Risk to bystanders in unnecessarily escalating situations - Legal ownership of guns by people who develop mental issues later - Combination of guns and highly emotional situations and/or alcohol leading to avoidable injury and death - ...
Based on such a process I have concluded for myself that in balance I'm against individual gun ownership.
Credit to you for saying that is not an exhaustive list. Based upon it, I can see where you see a Utopian balance. What does chicken taste like on planet Utopia ? I won't even mention that the cities with the most gun crimes have very strict prohibitions against guns, and that most mass shootings happen at "gun free zones". Ooops, . The "cons" list you cite are weak. So are your "pros".
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone: Punishment for robbery is not the death penalty and a private citizen is not a court of law and an executioner rolled into one.
Some people need killing. Murder does not even usually end in a death sentence. Some get out in five to twenty years, . Robbery has different classifications. Strong armed ... deadly threat ... who ever gets away with deadly threat is bound to kill someone sooner or later. They need to be stopped NOW. Next a stray shot against law enforcement may kill some Nuns carrying a box of kittens to the orphanage, for a fund raising sale. Can't have that. My point being ... when someone brings a gun into play for nefarious purposes, it's just a matter of time before an innocent gets killed. What are the percentages ? Much more than one time when a Marine calculates the balance of a specific situation. In truth, when someone brings out a gun, they should expect to get shot. That is what kept the nuclear balance/deterrent between the US and the USSR. It worked well. Better than gun free zones do.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-31-2014).]
Based on such a process I have concluded for myself that in balance I'm against individual gun ownership.
And this is where you cross the Constitutional line. If you have concluded for yourself that you don't want to own a gun, that's fine. Concluding that you don't want someone else to own one is not.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone:
IT WAS A JOKE, PEOPLE, A JOKE!!!!
Sure it was. You mock people, and if they don't like it you claim it's a joke. But putting your singluar sense of humor aside for the moment, are you aware the government has already conducted zombie exercises? http://www.huffingtonpost.c...corp-_n_2036996.html
Yeah, it's somewhat tongue in cheek, but it's also a way to portray a generic "bad guy" without risking offending a foreign nation (like having the bad guys be Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, etc.) It serves a second purpose in desensitizing the trainee and dehumanizing the enemy.
Much like these training targets... It helps overcome any hesitation to shoot an armed civilian.
At least in London, you have a much less chance of being shot. I'm sure this soldier was glad he wasn't killed by a gun. http://theconservativetreeh...-waiting-for-police/ You might have your head chopped off with a knife while people scream and mill around for 20 minutes until the police arrive - because they had to wait for armed police. But you won't have to wait the entire 20 minutes - you'll be dead long before that.
One person with concealed carry pistol could have changed that outcome. Would bystanders be hurt? Possibly. Would the soldier's life be saved? Possibly. All we know for sure is being unable to defend yourself means you just have to hope the crazy person decides to kill someone other than you today. And if you happen to witness it, you can take pictures for the news reporters, just like the unarmed people there did.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-31-2014).]
And this is where you cross the Constitutional line. If you have concluded for yourself that you don't want to own a gun, that's fine. Concluding that you don't want someone else to own one is not.
No, I don't. When I say that I have concluded something for myself then it means exactly that. If this would come to a vote and if I was eligible to vote in the issue at that time I would do it according to my opinion. But other then that I fully respect the laws as they are. I don't have to agree with all of them, I just have to follow them. Where's your problem?
Yes, opinions are formed. Guns - whether the right to own guns, or the right to bring one into play. Who should be making these decisions ? You seem to prefer "government". You seem to espouse a human is incapable.
Not too far from the truth. It also takes a government that's a representation of the people and one that's functioning reasonably well (and I think the US has that even though many here will probably disagree).
Originally posted by yellowstone: Where's your problem?
Your attempts to paint lawful actions in a negative light. Your willingness to vote (if eligible) for legislation that would further violate the 2nd Amendment. If people such as yourself don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, it should be changed via the Constitutional Amendment process, not by passing other legislation that perverts, ignores, or restricts the amendment. There's been far too much of that done already.
Everything real violent criminals do to acquire a firearm is already a serious federal felony. Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted. Holder’s Justice Department calls them “paper violations.” Yet those are the very crimes that they say demand a “universal background check”—a national registration scheme—for all of us.
So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user… And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
• 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.
• The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
• 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.
People like newf may point out they're not "trying to take our guns" and while true, it's only in the most narrow of views where you only consider the binary question "is there legislation being proposed to ban *all* guns right now." The anti-gunners have been at this for a long time and like water eroding away the Grand Canyon, so do they continue to erode rights wherever they see fit. So while I may seem unwilling to compromise on gun laws, that's because I am unwilling to compromise. Each compromise is one more cut in a death of a thousand knives. If we wait until the rights are gone completely, it's too late.
This thread is about 1 lawfully armed person apparently acting within the law. In that regard it's an isolated incident, but the responses that follow suggesting civilians shouldn't have the option to arm themselves brings with it all the ramifications of that action. Nothing happens in a bubble and government "solutions" to problems are rife with unintended consequences.
Being on the wrong side of the gun debate is a mistake a free people only make once. History is a great teacher if people will only pay attention.
Being on the wrong side of the gun debate is a mistake a free people only make once. History is a great teacher if people will only pay attention.
Problem is, the government has been busy getting everyone on the short bus and hitting the message hard. Pacifists are fools at best but most of the time just cowards. Don't get me wrong, I am all for their right to make these decisions in their pursuit of happiness. But they should be careful that there is somebody other than the government still around for them to hide behind later.
Originally posted by cliffw: Yes, opinions are formed. Guns - whether the right to own guns, or the right to bring one into play. Who should be making these decisions ? You seem to prefer "government". You seem to espouse a human is incapable.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone: Not too far from the truth. It also takes a government that's a representation of the people and one that's functioning reasonably well (and I think the US has that even though many here will probably disagree).
Do say ? The government that put gun rights in the American guarantee of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, seems to have functioned pretty well. It was a government representative of the people. That some would choose to change it ... because their panties are in a wad ... treason. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. OF WHICH THE CONSTITUTION RULES !
Saw this comment today and I think I should share it as it is spot on with constitutional law.
Quote: The Private Citizens Responsibility to keep and Bear arms isn't just founded in the 2nd Amendment. It's also written in plain English as apart of US C Title 10 Sections 312-313. The Organized Militia is the National Guard. The Unorganized militia is the Private Citizen as provided for by definition under that Title Code. It should settle the argument, but most people including some historians seem to either ignore that fact, or are completely unaware of it.
The Militia is the private citizen- The Minuteman; as it was the private citizen that formed the earliest units of The Continental Army before one was ever established and Federally recognized. The attempt to move the conversation away from that principle underscores the abject and willful obfuscation that the second amendment was based with that knowledge in mind. The People are 1st line of defense against a Tyrannical government and the last line of defense in the event of a General invasion from a foreign threat...hence the wording of U.S.C Title 10 sections 312-313. as far as the latter is concerned.
What you left out is that as a part of the militia you are available to be called for duty at any time. We get to keep guns because we need a militia but we don't get to ignore that obligation that goes with it. Yeah, you could be asked to serve at a moments notice. I wonder how many would complain.
Originally posted by TK: What you left out is that as a part of the militia you are available to be called for duty at any time. We get to keep guns because we need a militia but we don't get to ignore that obligation that goes with it. Yeah, you could be asked to serve at a moments notice. I wonder how many would complain.
Let me explain. There are pros and cons to almost everything and opinions are usually (hopefully?) formed by weighing pros and cons against each other and coming to a conclusion.
In terms of individual gun ownership pros and cons can be (not an exhaustive list):
Pros - Personal prtection, sense of security and protection, deterrent - Defense against a potentially dictatorial government - Increased chances of survival in case of a Zombie apocalypse - Hunting - ...
Cons - Increased risk for accidents - Increased risk for impulse suicides - Risk to bystanders in unnecessarily escalating situations - Legal ownership of guns by people who develop mental issues later - Combination of guns and highly emotional situations and/or alcohol leading to avoidable injury and death - ...
Based on such a process I have concluded for myself that in balance I'm against individual gun ownership.
So it appears that you are clumsy, impulsive, hotheaded, late age mental issues run in your family, and have a problem with alcohol.
I agree, gun ownership is not a good option for you.
I'm glad it went down like this. How would you feel about this issue if the above sentence would have read: "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital,"
Glad that you like to think about "what ifs"... I'm sure the Marine did too, and that's why it went down the way it did.
quote
Originally posted by TK:
Yep, but that is not what the law says. A little judicial activism?
Judicial activism? What on Earth are you talking about... this is the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
This is stating:
A) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
AND
B) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE POINTS.
Otherwise it would have said:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms under a well regulated militia shall not be infringed to ensure the security of a free state.
This has been affirmed, and repeatedly re-affirmed by the courts... REGARDLESS... of how you feel about guns and gun ownership.
COMMA (definition) = "Used to separate items in a list and to reflect pause in a sentence for difference in subject or pitch."
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-01-2014).]
Judicial activism? What on Earth are you talking about... this is the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
This is stating:
A) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
AND
B) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE POINTS.
Otherwise it would have said:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms under a well regulated militia shall not be infringed to ensure the security of a free state.
This has been affirmed, and repeatedly re-affirmed by the courts... REGARDLESS... of how you feel about guns and gun ownership.
COMMA (definition) = "Used to separate items in a list and to reflect pause in a sentence for difference in subject or pitch."
Exactly, to paraphrase the 2nd amendment, 'since we need a militia to maintain a free state, you to keep arms.' A militia is well defined (yes there are categories) but generally if you are between 17 and 45 you are eligible for duty in the militia. I believe prior service people are eligible until they are 65. I don't how anyone can read the 2nd amendment as two separate and independent statements. I think the desire to do this is to avoid our obligation to be available for service in a militia. We get to keep guns to make a militia easy to form or activate.
According to the post above the supreme court at some point separated being in a militia from gun ownership. Given that the 2nd amendment wasn't changed I believe it trumps their opinion and therefore I see it as judicial activism at some level. How many gun owners would sell their guns if they knew they could be called up for duty? On the other hand I don't see where not owning a gun would keep you out of service either. They can just give you one. Here, it's free.
So what did the SC really do? If the above is correct (I haven't researched the specific wording), then I might interpret it as 'owning a gun doesn't mean you are in the militia' but they didn't say a militia couldn't exist. It can exist - we just don't do it too much anymore.
Next, being in a militia doesn't mean you get to do what you want. You get told when and where. There are limitations on how and where the militia can be used but that is pretty much just to keep them from becoming law enforcement at someone's will.
Is the rub that some don't want to be obligated to join a militia because they own a gun? They don't want to join a militia at all if called? I want my gun but the 2nd amendment be damn. Thankfully the SC separated that ... hmmm. I struggle with squaring this with the specific wording of the 2nd amendment. We get to bear arms because ...
Just my interpretation. Maybe I am old-school here.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 06-01-2014).]
What you left out is that as a part of the militia you are available to be called for duty at any time. We get to keep guns because we need a militia but we don't get to ignore that obligation that goes with it. Yeah, you could be asked to serve at a moments notice. I wonder how many would complain.
Don't confuse the organized militia with the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia, i.e. the people, are a volunteer group and not subject to "be called for duty." The 2nd Amendment doesn't deal with the structure of any militia. It only recognizes that it is necessary for the people to be able to respond as a militia and that means the individual must have the right to bear arms. The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is collectively the people. The right is conferred upon the individual.
quote
D.C. v Heller The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Then re-read the D.C. v Heller decision until you do.
Thanks for the post. Good information. I still call it judicial activism. It guts the wording of the 2nd amendment which is totally unambiguous. I don't agree with the decision but hey, add it to the list, right? Yes, I know there are different militias which is exactly what I said above.
I do like that they affirmed this:
" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
"... shall not be infringed" does have limits. I do understand that 'we need a militia' doesn't mean you only get to use arms for shooting people. That's how most people fed themselves (not shooting people but rather animals.) I only disagree with the desire of some guns owners to distance themselves from a greater civil duty. All of the fun and none of the worry. It looks like a very slim majority removed that obligation.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 06-01-2014).]
Yes... only when it violates other amendments or laws. Otherwise, your own interpretation of it means nothing.
quote
Originally posted by TK:
Not in my opinion or the opinion of the 4 dissenting justices. One was the deciding vote.
Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the 2nd amendment though... not trying to be a dick, but it doesn't matter. It has been affirmed, and re-affirmed what the 2nd amendment means. It's not judicial activism either. Thomas Jefferson (if I'm not mistaken) was the one who wrote that amendment, or at least ratified it. He has plenty of books, notes, and memoires that he's written that fully explain what his views on gun ownership means.
REGARDLESS of how you feel, or whether we're in the 21st century and that it somehow makes any difference at all, is totally besides the point...
Thanks for the post. Good information. I still call it judicial activism. It guts the wording of the 2nd amendment which is totally unambiguous. I don't agree with the decision but hey, add it to the list, right?
For wording that's totally unambiguous the SCOTUS came to a different conclusion than you. But then, they did also say ObamaCare was Constitutional.
The right is an individual one so they may form a militia, but it does not impose militia restrictions on the right. That's the High School grammar of it, and it's also the SCOTUS decision.
Since Heller there have been many suits filed challenging strict gun ownership laws in places like Illinois, New York and California. There have been suits challenging restrictions on ownership by convicted felons. The Supreme Court finally came down on the side of the right to bear arms being a personal right in 2010. In the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Court found that the Second Amendment applied to the states and protected the personal right to bear arms. McDonald has decided a debate that had lasted 221 years.
On the subject of the original thread topic, from the WSB-TV Atlanta web site, June 2, 2014:
"Griffin Police Officer Shot, Killed At Waffle House
The Griffin Police Department is deeply saddened to announce the shooting death of one of our own, Officer Kevin Jordan. During the early morning hours of May 31, 2014 Officer Jordan was working a security detail at the Waffle House located at 1702 N. Expressway, Griffin, Spalding County, Georgia. At approximately 2:20 a.m. three subjects, two males and a female entered the Waffle House and began causing a disturbance. As result of the disturbance the subjects, identified as Michael Bowman, Tyler Taylor, and Chantell Mixon, were asked to leave the restaurant. A verbal altercation ensued that lead to the parking lot. While in the parking lot Officer Jordan attempted to place Chantell Mixon under arrest when a physical altercation occurred. While Officer Jordan was on the ground attempting to place Mixon in handcuffs he was maliciously shot in the back multiple times by Michael Bowman.
During the incident the suspect, Michael Bowman, was shot by the brother of Officer Jordan, Raymond Jordan, who was in the parking lot at the time of the incident. Raymond Jordan has a valid Georgia gun permit and was armed at the time of the incident. "
Raymond Jordan said, and I quote from the article, “My only regret, I don't want to be bitter. My only regret, I didn't kill him,” said Raymond Jordan. There has been no report of any innocent bystanders or buildings being hit by stray bullets.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: That's not really what I meant, that is pretty much given... I was saying if you commit a crime with a gun... heh.
if you ever make it up here we can walk a hundred yards from the road in front of my house, the required distance from our street to fire a gun legally and shoot all we want, with anything we want. I even have friends with some great guns, one has a cannon, another has an old school Gatling gun, and much more and there ain't a thing the cops can say or do about it.
guns are simple machines and not evil like many think, they are just a tool to be used by an operator, what the operator of that machine chooses to do with it can make the use of that machine good or bad. we try to be as safe as possible with guns in Maine as a rule, except when some nut gets ahold of a gun. What we need is more help for those with mental illness, not more laws about guns, there are already plenty of gun laws and restrictions on the ownership of them.
what this guy did is well within the laws of the state he was in, so far from what the article says, I agree with Don on this, anytime something like this happens by anyone the grand Jury should take it and I don't care if they are a cop or a regular person.
not saying anything against what you have said, just re-invite you here.
According to the link provided by maryjane on page one, he was well within his rights according to the accounts given by the media.
Then people like Dan and me disagree with the law as it currently stands. It's also legal to flog and incarcerate a woman for letting herself get raped in Saudi-Arabia and I disagree with that, as well.
People are throwing the "vigilante" description around here and it is not really accurate. Stopping a crime in progress, or detaining or stopping or hindering an escape is not vigilante . Hunting them down with an intent to administer punishment etc. is.
Not saying it is all bad, honestly I could what if? a few scenarios where I might very well do it.
Then people like Dan and me disagree with the law as it currently stands. It's also legal to flog and incarcerate a woman for letting herself get raped in Saudi-Arabia and I disagree with that, as well.
THIS IS NOT SAUDI ARABIA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS F$%KING CHRIST MAN.
------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2
[This message has been edited by FIEROPHREK (edited 06-03-2014).]
Then people like Dan and me disagree with the law as it currently stands. It's also legal to flog and incarcerate a woman for letting herself get raped in Saudi-Arabia and I disagree with that, as well.
Hey, if you'll remember back on page one, I was also questioning whether he had done the right thing. Laws do vary from state to state. I couldn't have gotten away with that in Tennessee. Not saying either way is right or wrong, they are just different.
As far as your point about Saudi-Arabia, if she LET herself get raped, doesn't that imply that she was willing? Therefore if she was willing then it was consensual extra-marital sex which is adultry. They do frown on adultry more than westerners tend to do. It wouldn't hurt us to make immoral things have a legal consequence. Maybe that's what's wrong with this country these days. No conscious, no shame, no consequence...what could possibly go wrong?
[This message has been edited by Boostdreamer (edited 06-03-2014).]
.
. They couldn't even win the war on drugs.
.
