DarthHookah Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 you are right- the supreme court frequently reviews the second amendment, and it frequently rules that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not the right of the government. federal courts have also stated that "there is no evidence in the wording of the second amendment, or any other part of the constitution, that the words 'We the People' have a different connotation within the second amendment than when apllied elsewhere." also, let me re-iterate that the constitution nor the bill of rights grants the right to bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the contitution that, recognizing the prior existence of a right, declares that it shall not be infringed upon by Congress. thus, the right to bear arms is not dependant on that instrument for its source. excuse me, i have to go oil my glock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 in any case, the bill of rights also doesnt say that i cant kidnap a bunch of toddlers and harvest their organs for beer money, now does it? just because it is not in the bill of rights does not mean it is all good. times have changed. slavery has been abolished, and there is still a need for law abiding citizens to bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Well, first off, the Supreme Court does not frequently review the 2nd amendment and has not done so since 1939. I said that the Bill of Rights has been subject to judicial review, referring to the numerous rulings on the 1st and 4th amendments specifically. The point of this was to demonstrate that the Bill of Rights is not untouchable. If the courts so frequently rule that gun ownership is an unalienable and individual right, why do we have gun laws? Many defendants have tried to appeal to higher courts on the grounds that gun control laws violate their Constitutional rights, but are consistently struck down. If guns are such a sacred right that cannot be abridged by the State, then laws banning assault rifles, concealed weapons, and various other firearms would have been deemed unconstitutional. Yes, of course the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all rights of citizens and was not intended to. It was written to protect those rights that the framers believed to be most threatened by a federal government at that time. The right to kill toddlers and harvest their organs was never condoned in any part of the Constitution. Slavery was. And yes, times have changed. We are no longer threatened with tyrannical governments (no matter what you say about Bush) and we have a well-run police force and National Guard. What exactly is the need for law abiding (shouldn't matter anyway, as according to you, all people have the natural right to own guns) citizens to carry guns? It can't be crime, you already said you don't look at it from a crime standpoint. What do you need to own a gun for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 "Well, first off, the Supreme Court does not frequently review the 2nd amendment and has not done so since 1939." wow. this amendment, along witht the first, is the most heavily discussed amendment out of the first 10. "we have a well-run police force and National Guard" there are approximately 150, 000 police officers on duty. that includes desk clerks, command sergeants, etc., so there are far fewer then the total number patroling. now, with the 271, 933, 702 citizens in the US, there are about 1, 813 citizens to every single cop. personal safety is not the police's responsibility. it is your own. there is no law until the law arrives ("we are totally safe here. there are police on duty, and guns arent allowed here!"). in many cases, the police departments are swamped with corruption as it is. and do you remember the last time you saw the national guard doing patrol? some guy is getting mugged, and the national guard shows up in a tank. "What do you need to own a gun for?" we dont have a bill of needs, we have a bill of rights. they say you dont need an AK-47 to hunt deer- you also dont need a ferrari to get a gallon of milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Discussed and ruled upon by the Supreme Court are two different things entirely. Just because people talk about gun control all the time does not mean that the Supreme Court actually hears cases on gun laws violating the Constitution. Since when is the responsibility of police not to protect people? Sure, the police don't prevent all crime, but they are a deterrent to criminals. So rather than increasing the police force, we should just hand out guns to 290 million Americans so they can protect themselves? Now that sounds like an America I want to live in. I'm sure most police officers out there would take offense to you claiming that "in many cases, the police departments are swamped with corruption." Do you have anything to back that up, or do you just not like police? The presence of the National Guard I was referencing was as the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment, not as a civil police force (once again, see my early posts on this subject). You said, "times have changed. slavery has been abolished, and there is still a need for law abiding citizens to bear arms" Thus, I asked you, what is your need for a gun? It pains me, but I will dignify your analogy with a response. The AK-47 holds 30 7.62x39mm rounds in a standard magazine. The AK-47 can fire at a cyclic rate of 600rpm, or at an effective rate of 400rpm (burst) or 100rpm (single-shot). The AK-47 can kill effectively at a range of 300m. This means that I could, in theory, kill 30 people in less than a minute from 3 football fields away without having to reload. Just imagine what I could do in the middle of a crowd with a 75 round drum magazine with my AK on full auto. Can you accomplish that with a Ferrari? Point being, sure a Ferrari is totally unnecessary, but allowing people to own AK-47s is more dangerous than allowing people to own Ferraris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 "Since when is the responsibility of police not to protect people?" here i am sitting in my computer room. i am alone, except for the girl i have kidnapped, restrained and gagged. are the police protecting her? if she were properly armed, she could have warded me off. but, since guns are evil, she doesnt have one. and now a maniac with a gun has her in captivity (i dont really have a girl here with me. i mean, my mom is here, but she is in bed, of her own free will, unrestrained). "do you just not like police?" actually, i was considering law enforcement as a career, before i went into the navy. i wasnt saying all police departments are corrupt. my bad on that one- misinterpreted. "This means that I could, in theory, kill 30 people in less than a minute from 3 football fields away without having to reload" in theory, communism works. in practice? thats another thing. you try hitting 30 moving targets lookling down a scope where the crosshairs actually block out the target. in any case, the misnamed "assault weapons" are not even that common in crime. they are big, hard to conceal, and can be pricey. no, criminals prefer high points, raven/phoenix arms .25 pistols, and beatsticks. aside from that, there are many reasons why an AK-47 would be ideal- they are easy to operate, durable in many weater conditions (perfect for hiking, camping, and hunting), and are used in many shooting sports (IPSC matches, bodyguard simulations, three gun matches, etc...). i like having my rifles and handguns because i enjoy the sport of shooting, the comraderie of the people i meet while shooting, and for self defense in extreme circumstances (say what you want, but would you tell a guy who bought a parachute in case he has to jump out of an office building he works at to get rid of it, because he doesnt have an immediate need for it?) the AK-47 is no more dangerous than any other hunting rifle. the only difference is the appearance. "The presence of the National Guard I was referencing was as the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment" strange- the national guard was founded in 1903, yet the bill of rights was written around 1789. unless they had a time machine, they could not have possibly been refering to an organization that didnt exist yet. in any case, i am done debating. we have gotten nowhere, we have effectively pissed each other off, and if i am not mistaken, i believe you are a fascist. taking guns away from people who feel they need them for protection, claiming that the government is there to protect them sounds like fascism to me. i love the united states, and i love the fact that i can carry my concealed weapon to a busy street and yell "down with the president" burning the american flag. obviosuly, i wouldnt do many of those things i just listed, but as has been said before me, "i will defend to the death my right to say it". perhaps we can be friends on another forum. this serious forum is too combative for a place i would like to meet friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Sure, the police can't protect everyone. Maybe they can't even protect most people. However, I see a greater danger in arming the entire population and leaving self-defense up to each individual rather than eliminating gun ownership and leaving it up to the police. I'd wager that if everyone had a gun, home invasions would probably go down. But there would almost certainly be an increase in gun accidents, cases of mistaken identity in shootings, people with itchy trigger fingers. etc. The whole thing about the AK-47 was an attempt to show you how comparing a Ferrari to an assault rifle (that is what an AK-47 is) was an apples to oranges argument. I realize killing 30 people in less than a minute from 300 yards away would be quite a feat of marksmanship (not that I condone such a thing). True, the National Guard was established in 1903, but that was really just a standardization of the state militias that had existed since the start of the country. So, in one form or another, the National Guard, while having more federal oversight than its predecessors, has existed since the 2nd amendment. Am I a fascist or a hippie? I've been called both in this thread. Not that I really care either way, just looking for clarification. All in all, I really don't think private gun ownership will be totally abolished, but will likely become more regulated. I think, for at least the foreseeable future, guns will remain legal in some, if not most, states in America. In truth, I don't really mind the status quo, I'd just like to see some extra safety measures in place. I actually plan on buying a Sig Sauer P226 in the future (not for self-defense or fear of government power). Just seemed to me that the anti-gun position was sorely underrepresented in this thread. By the way, I'm not/wasn't pissed off, sorry if you are/were DH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 The purpose of the government, according to John Adams, was "To protect the privileged from the rabble of the masses." The FBI, which used to be the primary agency responsible for investigating kidnapping, is now primarily concerned with anti-terrorism domestically. If, on 9-11, the terrorists had flown the planes into people's houses, it would have barely made the news...the only reason that it was important is that big business "the privileged" was threatened and hurt by terrorists. That's why owning guns must be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Just because today your president isnt Adolf Hitler doesnt mean tomorow it wont be. People need to stay armed to ensure that it doesnt happend. Its just like how everyone having guns in Switzerland has helped keep them out of every world war. Switzerland has the system of arming all its people and yet I dont see this Dante's Inferno rendition of what happends when everyone is armed. An armed society is a polite one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 That is such a weak argument. Well, just because I haven't been abducted by aliens doesn't mean tomorrow I won't be. Just because there hasn't been a Holocaust in America doesn't mean there won't be tomorrow. Just because the entire American workforce hasn't risen up and united against the bourgeoisie doesn't mean tomorrow it won't. In America we have a Constitution that dictates what powers the government will have which are regulated through many checks and balances. The protection argument can have some scrap of merit, but all of this junk about preventing total government takeover of American society can not. All of these Ben Franklin and other founding father quotations are centuries old. We are no longer threatened by our government. This is the basic principle of democracy: we are the government. The only people who own large arsenals for fear of government oppression in this country live in Texas and Montana in large compounds with other paranoid "soldiers" that "keep America safe." Yeah I'm sure it was Switzerland's armed citizens that kept them out of WWI and WWII. Did the Soviet Union not have enough privately armed citizens to keep the Nazis from invading in WWII? Those tanks, airplanes, and soldiers that the Soviets had weren't much of a deterrent, were they? Not to mention that half of the gold trade of the Nazi government (mostly stolen from Jews) went through Swiss banks during WWII (the Swiss recently agreed to repay $1.25 billion to a Holocaust fund as reparations). Sounds like Hitler had a reason to keep his Swiss friends around. And could it have been Switzerland's lack of alliances that prevented them from being drawn into WWI? Yes, you're right, Switzerland has a lot of guns but not a lot of crime. How is the lack of gun control working out for Somalia? They have a lot of guns, would you feel safe there? Why is it that in Canada, which has tighter gun laws than the US, there are nearly 3 times less firearm deaths (per 100,000) per year than in the United States? Canada seems to have a fairly "polite" society without everyone being armed. Could it be that there are other things in Switzerland keeping the murder rate low rather than arming the citizenry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 tell you what, kilgore- write your congressman, tell him how awful guns are, maybe he will get a bunch of his congressman friends together and they can ban guns altogether. im sure life will improve dramatically. well, amybe your life. not mine, nor will the lives of the people who come to try to confinscate my weapons either. issall good, kil. i just now realized that DH was me! im DH! no hard feelings, lets light up sometime, ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yeah, but per capita, there are slightly more guns in Canada than there is in the US...guns are illegal in Mexico, yet crime is rife there. Guns are illegal in Britain, and crime is lower...guns have no correlation on crime or murder. So, Kilgore...I take it you only buy an umbrella when its raining and then throw it away when the rain stops? Why own an umbrella when its not raining, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakemonster Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 [quote]Guns are illegal in Britain, and crime is lower...guns have no correlation on crime or murder.[/quote] got a link for that? I understand otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 eh, studies on british crime are not so good, since they have awkward ideas of what constitutes a "crime" (for instance, they dont include youth crime when tallying these numbers up). in fact, the british parliament doesnt even consider them to be accurate. do i have a link? probably not, though i did a lot of research for a paper for college... take that how you want, but ive read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Clever as always Tangiers. So I take it you are prepared for the next bubonic plague? Next Catholic Inquisition? Next Mongol invasion? Next Biblical flood? You never know, it just might happen tomorrow. Why don't we all just create our own personal arsenals and fortify our homes with concrete and steel barricades in case it "rains again?" I realize that there is no convincing anyone that government oppression and armed revolt aren't coming anytime soon so I think I will just give up and move to Waco and live in the burned out shell of the Branch Davidian compound and wait for the day when my people will band together to liberate the oppressed American citizens and destroy those fascist pigs in Washington. Or maybe I will just do what people in a democracy do and cast my ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 why is no one preparing for the inevitable zombie invasion? it is not only probable, it is possible and imminent. the secrets of life and death are not yet understood, and it is very likely that there is a neurological disease that causes re-animation. when hell is full, the dead shall walk the earth! join the opposition now! [url="http://www.antizombieleague.org"]The Anti-Zombie League![/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Kilgore: I agree with your logic, but I disagree with your example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofdavid Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Remember the good ole pre 1920's NFA days when you could mail order a Thompson Machine Gun from the five and dime and owning a gun was seen as a good thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsboy Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Who owns a gun around here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthHookah Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 i have several guns. im afraid the only ways to see what kind of guns i have would be to invade my house- at which point you would only briefly see them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakemonster Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Too many to name.......... to much bandwidth to post the pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I own 29 guns. All legal by Canadian law. Dont have pictures of all of them but: [url="http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img14053fa.jpg"][img]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8451/img14053fa.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/351/dsc000300db.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/7553/0a7f430c8ni.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/336/dsc000380nu.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/7818/dsc000372xf.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/9771/dsc000291xv.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/9486/dsc000154fr.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/8605/dsc000232pf.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/9272/dsc000207hh.th.jpg[/img] [img]http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2055/guns030.th.jpg[/img][/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsboy Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Nice collection ... I wanna join a gun club but on the east coast we have very limited options and we don't have good ranges for hand guns or restricted weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakemonster Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Your collection reminds me of my own. lots of old bolt guns........ Is that a Hakin in the top pic? and a Schmidt Rubins 1911? I've got a SR K31 I absolutley love. you know whats crazy ? they wont let us have those strange (Czech or Yugo....dont remember now) type AK's........ the receivers are too easily converted from what I understand. That rascal with the folding stock. is that some sort of FN.. or HK? Im not makin it out.. What make is your M-4? Nice collection, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 What you think is the Hakim is the gun its based off of, the AG42B from sweden. The Czech guns we get are infact built on old machinegun receivers somehow, selector still goes into the 3rd position, but its welded up and grinded inside, would take quite a bit of welding and milling to bring it back to FA. However I know US gun laws, and you have A) an import ban on assault rifles, home grown is fine now though. BATF decided once a machinegun, always a machinegun, you'd need to start from a bare receiver. The only reason we get them in Canada is a technicality cause they where supposebly never assembled receivers Anyhow the folding black rifle next to my rubin 1911 is a SG550/PE90 rifle called a "Black Special". Its a swiss assault rifle thats marketed under SIG. Soon you'll see a bastardized version from SIGARMS. My M4 is a model 1 sales upper on a Canadian made lower with an Israeli sling. Wish I had more up to date pics of my benelli M4 and others. I love collecting WW2 and postwar guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now