Liberals versus conservatives

If ALL guns are banned, for the most part you're only taking guns out of the hands of the responsible people who actually go through the proper channels and red tape to get one. What makes someone think that guns wouldn't go the way of illegal drugs?

Rapper Ice Cube said it in "The N***** You Love To Hate":
"So what they do go and ban the AK/My s**t wasn't registered any f***ing way"

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Homer Jay]

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Homer Jay]

Originally posted by Homer Jay
If ALL guns are banned, for the most part you're only taking guns out of the hands of the responsible people who actually go through the proper channels and red tape to get one. What makes someone think that guns wouldn't go the way of illegal drugs.

Agrred , and it is already happening , just off topic....

Sorry if this isn't mud pitty enough for ya TC , will try to be more of an oppinionated prick in the future...... Promise !

But the question is, were the mitas mentioned in the bill of rights for the purpose of protecting america from other counties, or protecting america from its own government?
The one thing I cn never get around is the fact that the founding fathers, having just waged a successful rebellion aginst thier own government, Placed a right whose only purpose seems to be INSURING that the people had the rght to rebel aginst them. If insuring the rights of the people to rebel against the government was the purpose of the second ammendment than the ban of militry grade weapons I.E. "assualt" weapons, RPGs and even tanks is against the spirit of the Bill of rights.

As far as my invesetigations go , yes the original premise of the 2nd Ammendment was to not just call upon the local milita for country wide support , but also allow them to fight for their individual rights in respects to oppression against governmental intrusion as our forefathers had to fight for .

I believe 2 states (with my home state of new hampshire being one of them) have maintained the right to suceed from the union under this premise . (will look that one up ) Succesion is not allowed , and it would seem redundant for a local militia to attempt to go against the collective might of the rest of the country (there are enough quarrys in NH without turning the whole state into one , the granite state...)

Since in a majority of cases the right to succeed has been abolished , the need for warfare quality weapons has been placed in the hands of the collective military might of the "armed services".

So in this respect , the rules have changed in regards to the original premise of the 2nd Ammendment , and the laws involved in such "fortification" need re-evaluation in respects to our "right" to bear arms .

Look foreward to your response.....Odd

Whereas I completely and totally agree with the premise set forth in the Second Ammendment, we have to keep in mind the level of technology available to our founding fathers. That technology is the EXACT premise upon which this ammendment was created. At the time of the writing, muskets were the weapon du jour. They never contemplated the likes of fully automatic weapons, hollow-point bullets, extended magazines and clips and the whole arsenal of advanced weaponry such as frag grenade launchers, rpgs etc... A more appropriate question is, "Has the advent of weapons technology created a need to re-evaluate the wording of the second ammendment?"

In it's barest essence, and taken literally, our right to bear arms should not limit us to shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols, but should grant us the freedom to bear 50 cal. machine guns, RPGs, grenades, shoulder fired missiles and the like, perhaps and even tanks and artillery. Now I think that every reasonable human being reading this post could clearly agree that this type of advanced weaponry does not belong in the public domain.

I realize that many people have argued that the creation of the second ammedment served dual purposes; to immediately ready a militia of civilians and citizens during a time of war AND to prevent political tyranny by allowing this country's citizens to revolt against such tyranny. However, the creation of an organized military, the passage of Posse Comitatus and the like have virtually prevented a coup de tat thus decreasing the need to have a civilian militia. In other words, things, societally speaking, are vastly different than when our founding fathers created the original Bill of Rights. And, again, back to my question, do these societal and/or technologcal advances warrant a rewording of the original document?

kozomo , what is your responce to your own question ? I have been trying to sus out the details to form my own oppinion , and was wondering about yours . You have articulately surmised our oppinions here , whaddayathinkaboutthem ?

In short form, yes, I think that the technological advancements and the development of society does require a rethinking of certain parts of the Constitution. I do not mean a repealing of rights or rewriting the document. However, I think that further clarification should be introduced based on logic and reason.

No, I do not think that John Q. Public should be able to possess grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons etc... Keep in mind, the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were to protect John Q. Public from unnecessary government intrusion and to protect the general public from one another. That is the spirit of the document. People are welcome to disagree with me on this, but I would merely ask them to present their case where the possession of such weapons make society safer as a whole.

I hope that suffices, todd.

thanks , very articulate , I think we agree . apppreciate your reply..hand off to you mwm.....

[edit on 22-6-2004 by oddtodd] and I am in no way in favor of repeal of this right , some clarification is in order in respects to the change of times IMO

[edit on 22-6-2004 by oddtodd]

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Hey if you want an UZI, AK-47 or some other gun.. go ahead keep it but don't cause trouble. That is the problem, they cannot trust everyone so they impose all these laws to prevent people from owning such weapons.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by RedOctober90]

do civilians really need those kinda weapons? when was the last time we were invaded? that was 192 years ago.

On your point I agree Ivan. The constitution was loosely written to guarantee both sides of any argument have wriggle room.

The "Gun ownership Amendment" is a perfect example.

I always liked the ole argument: "If guns are outlawed only criminals would have guns". I say GOOD!! We would know who to go after.

The problem is, is that even if you could ban weapons they would most likely have to grandfather all the exsisting guns and say a big "SORRY" to all the employees who maintain, sell, make guns in America.

Also, you would probably have an armed revolt. I'd be with them myself.

But can any government controoled armed force be considered a civillian millitia? If the purpose of a millitia is to protect the citizenry from oppressive government then by its very nature the National guard can not be considered a millitia by the founding fathers definitions.
As to whether or not the founding fathers could have prediticted modern weaponry, while I dont believe they could have predicted the specifics yes I do think they knew that both technology and weaponry would evolve.

Originally posted by mwm1331
But can any government controoled armed force be considered a civillian millitia? If the purpose of a millitia is to protect the citizenry from oppressive government then by its very nature the National guard can not be considered a millitia by the founding fathers definitions.
As to whether or not the founding fathers could have prediticted modern weaponry, while I dont believe they could have predicted the specifics yes I do think they knew that both technology and weaponry would evolve.

Been reading up on the constitution : The government can call the local malitia to defend in times of war or "insurgency" . Which sounds to me like a catch 22 if you are a local malitia , and also insurgent .

However , individual states DO NOT have the right to have "troops" . How this differs with a militia I will have to sus out , but the Army, Navy,Airfoce...etc. would not be conscidered militia in the context of my readings .

In regards to secession , there is nothing anywhere in The Constitution that says a state can or cannot seceed , and they are all considered "free states"

" Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]). It said that the entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into "an indissoluble relation." It said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union (it is interesting to note that Texas benefitted from the decision that it had unconstitutionally attempted to leave the Union)."

Regarding weapons :" 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 . "

It seems to me there is a bit of doublespeak , as in most legal documents,that don't explain away the contridictions .

With all this in mind (and hopefully back to the topic) : IMHO it is each individual states right to decide on their own gun laws , and not the federal governments . "assault weapon" bans seem to infringe on the freedom of the individual states to self govern .

In this respect I will agree with your premise on a federal level but until the states have regained the right to self govern , and decide for themselves what is appropriate "arms" , I am glad some of the higher tech weapons are not allowed .(regardless of the federal/state infringement).

I think an individual state might have to challenge this for it to get anywhere , but they may then be considered the"insurgents" that they have the right to arm themselves against . Round and round she goes !

This time just a link to a nice breakdown of The Constitution that helped me work thru these thoughts :

www.usconstitution.net...

I think it would be helpful to look at the mechanics of militias at that time to understand that phrase.
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 .



At that time a millitia was a collection of citizens called upon by community leaders to fight an enemy using thier own weapons.
In the first part it says a citizen militia is needed, Therfore to have the abillty to call up a citizen millitia, the people must have weapons they can bring. if the citizens have no weapons then its just a mob.

Not also that it specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed . "


Given that cannon artillery was used by the American forces and that the founding fathers did not place a restriction on the type of arms then I think I should have the right to buy a tank.

Had the founding fathers meant only rifles then it would not state "arms" I believe they knew this would allow citizens of wealth to buy cannons and that was thier intent.

www.armyjeeps.net... aparently you can ! could probably have shells fabricated .

Serious debate oriented reply to follow , off to work at the moment ...

Have a good day !

todd



[edit on 24-6-2004 by oddtodd]

The responsible people who own gun don't go around shooting...

The black market is there for those who are like that.

Crime rates are up because the black market exists, buy a gun, toss it when your done using it for whatever crime you intended to use it with.

Al Qaeda actually registers their guns, rocket launchers?

No, they buy em off the black market.

People who own guns don't use em the way these people do.



The problem with liberals in this case is that their ideologies stem away from this theory. And the only reason why they do that is because they don't want people to own guns period. More control for them.
Many sociopaths run in the democratic party. Bill Clinton Al Sharpton Howard Dean John Kerry, just to name a few. Those are the people you need to watch out for if your worried about your freedoms.

Okay that was a good exchange.
Next topic

Welfare: should the rich be forced to support the poor?

Many liberals believe that the "rich" don't pay thier fair share but is that really true?
A recent article seems to disagree.
www.foxnews.com...
What are your views?

[edit on 29-6-2004 by mwm1331]

However, what is left out are true income figures, and how many ways the rich have learned to hide their income and avoid payment of such.

I don't want anyone "supporting" anyone. However, I do feel many in the upper income categories derive much of their income from the work of the lower classses.

I continue to hear alot about "welfare". Ladies, and gents one needs to remember that much of this changed back during the Clinton administration. Yes, some still goes on. However, not near as much as it used to.

Always remember this: Survival of the fittest has never worked and never will.

Another thing this article failed to point out is the actual income figures of the upper class. I notice it showed an approximate level of the lower classes but neglected to say the average income of the upper 1-5%. These figures are staggering while we have WORKING Americans stuggling for food, health care, and a place to sleep at night.

Madman the figures did not state ANY income levels except for the low end. The fact is the top half of earners are paying 96% of all tax revenues. The figures were not bsed on what people are supposed to have paid in taxes they were based on the taxes actually collected.
Yes there are people struggling to get ahead and I have no problem with unemployment insurance. What I do have a problem with is women who cant afford to feed themselves having children that I have to support. I am one of the people in the maximum tax bracket, I got here because I worked my butt of my whole life. What pisses me off is seeing my tax dollars going to lazy, ambitionless, slackers who contribute nothing to this country. I grew up poor, very poor, Most (not all) poor people are poor because they are lazy, stupid, or both. those who work hard and smart don't stay poor for long. The Idea that I am supposed to spend my money supporting someone else because they cant is wrong. I support my family, why cant they?

Back from a 20 th class reunion in New Hampshire (Live Free Or Die) , and had a conversation with mummsy about our gun issue(s) . As a lifelong Democrat (I am registered non-partisan) she informed me that you are right MWM , and I am wrong . Thats the way the old boys wrote it , and thats how it should be aknowledged regardless of the criminal element .

She is the only one with this power over me .

Agreed , good exchange ..... on to the next .

Odd