Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
Look, we're both gun advocates, and I admire both your stance and conviction. At one time I agreed 100%; but time and age have changed my position. I
believe in the second amendment as well as the 8th; but what defines cruel and unusual? And amendments to the constitution already exist for felony
and underage possession. Death is already a penalty, so constitutionally, death administered legally is constitutionally correct under the 8th. And
those things you say aren't protected by the constitution, aren't prohibited either, so why aren't they legal? because of progressive law. Amendments
to the constitution happen every day:en.wikipedia.org... The fact that you insinuate my
proposal is constitutionally incorrect has been validated as incorrect by changes of the past.
Yes, we are both gun advocates, and yes, our stance vary. Time and age will lead us all along differing paths, as has occurred here. It's not so much
the time and age per se, I suspect, but the varying experiences that those two things will throw on one.
Regarding the "amendment to the Constitution" already in existence for convicted felons and underage persons, I need to be educated. Precisely which
covers those exceptions? Surely you are aware that a law passed in contravention of the Constitution is not an amendment
rather a contrary bit of legislation. Therefore, I feel confident that you can point me to an amendment
on those subjects, and await my
education. Until that time, I will continue to believe that the Second, already an amendment itself, applies exactly as it states internally.
Those things neither protected nor prohibited are illegal for precisely the same reason that firearms will eventually be made illegal here - people
who are unwilling to stand for their rights, and who do not have a working knowledge of the prior applicable laws. I suppose they could be covered
under the vague catchall term "pursuit of happiness", but note that attainment
of happiness is not covered there, only the pursuit of it.
Possession of arms, on the other hand, is explicitly protected.
The living alone comment was directed at minors, not adults. But if you lived alone as a child my heart goes out to you. It may explain how you came
to defend the stance which you're taking regarding putting guns in the hands of a child. (by the way, I agree, only if that child is under adult
supervision, never without)
My apologies for my misunderstanding. No, I didn't live alone as a minor, but I DID mostly feed and clothe myself. A firearm was instrumental in that,
putting meat on the table and hides to be sold to buy things like clothes and incidentals. Accepting government money was not an option. We did for
ourselves, the best we could, and refused any sort of "debts of honor" to the government. The payback price for those is ALWAYS too high.
Yes, ANYONE handling guns need supervision, minor or not. They have to learn respect for the gun, but after they've learned, there's no need to hover
over them constantly. If that need is present, the training was lacking.
Why should we all follow the same rules? Because we all live in America. I'm sure your aware that the legal marijuana from CA ends up in every state
of the Union. I'm sure your aware that guns purchased from Wal-Mart in middle America, end up in urban developments. How can we function as United
States, when we're not united by the same laws?
So, you're ok with applying the laws of say Chicago or DC across the entire nation? They're alleged to be Americans, too, so what's good for them is
good for all? Interesting take. Where I live, there is a city with a law that a single property is allowed two animals, no more. How do you suppose
that will play with the cattle ranchers when it's applied nationwide? Now, if THAT isn't to be made applicable because of regional differences, why
the other blanket laws that may be good in one place but not another? Since the Constitution doesn't guarantee animal possession specifically, there
ought not to be any problem at all with my proposal.
No, I think it's a better solution for local governments to define and deal with local problems as they see fit, but not try to extend their reach
nationally, "fixing" problems that may not be a problem elsewhere.
If your old enough to have witnessed change, you'd see the undeniable development of urban areas.
I'm around 50 or so. Towards the upper end of "or so". I've seen change in a number of urban areas, not necessarily the sort that I would characterize
as "development". If you're around G'boro, your probably aware of the problems that urban expansion and forced annexation have wrought.
They encroach our farmlands every year as the population explodes. Why should cities govern the laws that are enforced in areas outside. For the
reasons stated above. Additionally, with enough time, America will be one giant urban development. Proof: Are the projects getting smaller or bigger?
Do the suburbs resemble what they once did?
If that day ever comes, America will no longer be able to feed herself. We will have much larger problems than mere legislation then. Personally, I
don't believe that day will ever come. Lemmings have a brutal way of solving overpopulation to which Americans, or humans in general, are not immune,
and we may already be seeing the beginning stages of such a cull. Only time will tell.
Where do you think the guns in the cities that ban them come from? Case in point: Detroit, LA, NYC, Miami, Houston, and on and on. These cities, and
city-like ares expand every year, in every direction. Look at gangs and their numbers compared to 100 yrs ago. (that's a blink of the eye from a
I care not where the guns come from when they arrive at cities which ban them. That would be that particular city's lookout, and the people who live
in it. They need to order their own house as they like, and leave mine alone.
Greensboro NC, that's funny. I moved there 20 yrs ago to get away from what I consider "city living". But let's use it as an example. Have you seen it
20 yrs ago compared to today?
Yes. I arrived in Greensboro in 1990 or 1991.
Both the landscape and laws have changed with progression. I actually purchased several guns in that "city". 2-7 day wait on handguns unless you
support a concealed carry permit. I went through this process... 90 day wait. All gun purchases/permits should be held to the same background checks.
Most crimes committed with a legal firearm happen in the first 3 months. Statistics don't usually lie.
Agreed. That "progression" is why I'm no longer in Greensboro. What you are proposing will mean I have no escape whatsoever from the petty laws and
ordinances they've instituted there. "No escape" translates to "stand and fight". I hear they've only recently gotten rid of those damned traffic
cameras (I never got busted by one, but I had and have a major gripe with their mere existence, which we can get into another time), and that they now
even tax the rain. Living in hives makes humans crazy, I think.
Answer these questions honestly and prove my point: What would you do if...
1- You woke up at 3am to a minority in your living-room, your TV in his hands, and he was headed for the door?
In order to answer that truthfully and completely, I'll first have to know what minority status has to do with it. I've had breakins and attempted
breakins 3 times. Two of those were white males, and the third I never saw before I convinced him to seek employment elsewhere, so I can't verify his
race. That last one was when I lived in the woods in a predominantly white rural area, so I presumed he was white as well, but never could verify
that. I live in a mixed black and hispanic neighborhood now, and it seems safer to me. Folks around here know the score, and that life is real, and
don't bother me.
Pending the explanation of the relevance of minority status, I presume that my reaction would be the same as it was with the white guys. Simply
convince them that I was not one to be trifled with, whatever that took, and no more.
2- That same individual had one of your guns instead of a TV?
Again, pending the explanation of minority relevance, I would laugh at him, right out loud, and proceed to disassemble his dumb ass while he was
desperately trying to figure out why that gun just wouldn't fire for him. I've taken precautions against me or anyone else from being shot by my own
gun - not involving trigger locks. Imagine his surprise. I actually got to see that look once. It's priceless!
3- If your child was killed in school by another child who obtained a gun? (happens all the time)
I've already covered that possibility. If such were to occur, it would be a failure on my part for having defectively trained my child. I'm confident
that he knows what to do, and won't hesitate. If not, then I'm a failure as a parent. It's a big world. You can't possibly protect kids from
everything, so the next best option is to teach them to protect themselves, and that doesn't necessarily involve any macho BS fighting. This ain't
4- You found the person who sold him that gun that allowed him to kill your child?
That would be between me and him, but it's safe to assume he wouldn't act that irresponsibly again. Not in revenge for my own child - THAT'S on MY
head - but to prevent it's recurrence.
What I would NOT do is melt down guns, or try to pass a law that people in Portland aren't allowed to have them.
5- You found out he sold several guns, which killed several children in gang related crimes?
No difference in the end result, whether it was one sale or 10,000. HE is responsible for his own sales, not Smith and Wesson, not Barney's gunshop,
not my neighbor Sal. I'll not go on a rampage and punish EVERYONE for the acts of an individual.
6- Your home was broken into and your guns were stolen?
Notify the ATF and local law enforcement, and give them the serial numbers, any suspicions I may harbor as to culprit, and identify to them the
particular disabilities the guns have, to aid identification. I say that with all confidence, because it's happened. That's when I got to see that
priceless stare - when the miscreant realized that the gun could not and would not be made to fire, and that any attempt at all could have dire
consequences to the attemptee - but the intended target had nothing to worry about.
7- Your family arrived on the scene and was killed with your own weapons?
Won't happen. As I said, precautions have already been taken against that. If you want to know how,I'll tell you in a U2U, but not on the open boards.
Everyone likes surprises, right?
8- You arrived on the scene armed, and had the drop on the people who just killed your family?
They would cease to exist as viable organisms. Of that., I have no doubt at all. The world no longer requires their services.
edit on 2011/1/21 by nenothtu because: of pesky spelling errors wrought by an over-worn keyboard.