NationStates Jolt Archive

Just askin'... ;)

I dunno... is there any proof? :confused:

Because the (allegedly hermaphroditic) Founding Fathers say so! :headbang:

Because they believe that ppl should be allowed to challenge others to a duel! Don't know maybe they believe that everyone should be able to protect themselves. But violence causes violence

Well, if the greater american public all had access to weapons and the ability to carry them around there would be a lot less repeat violent criminals for one. There are quite a few criminals who will not carry guns in their crimes precisely because of the felony murder rule. That number would be even less if people were allowed easy access to guns and the ability to carry them, concealed or otherwise.

Which conservative said they wanted Criminals to have free access to guns?

This is just the kind of hyperbole I expect from anyone who opposes gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Not a single opponent can give a single example of where gun control, i.e. banning gun ownership, has improved public safety. The main argument that I see is that because it seems "bad" to own gun, it should be illegal.

Obviously Druthulhu is either baiting those of us with common sense into a rash reply, or Druthulhu doesn't understand the position that we take. Let me make it clear, the position that I and many others support is to allow unrestricted gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. That doesn't include criminals.

Regards, y'all

And another monster thread of flame is brought into the world.

So that we can claim self-defense when we unload several clips into them. Duh.

As much proof as there is that Liberals want to completely ban all guns. ;) So... yeah... this is just me venting about the crass generalization in another thread's title. Have fun! :D

- I am in favour of the Second Amendment, as worded, no more and no less, within the bounds of Compelling State Interest:


sane and law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bare arms, which should not be infringed, a well ordered militia being yadda yadda yadda:
to have and sell or trade in secrecy goes beyond keeping and baring, and is thus not a constitutionally guaranteed right;
to use in an untracable manner goes beyond keeping and baring, and is thus not a constitutionally guaranteed right;
persons convicted of violent crimes including crimes of threats of violence may have their rights to keep and bare arms removed by the state, by the precedent that the state may deprive convicted felons of such central rights as the right to vote;
persons legally determined to be mentally unsound to the extent of presenting a danger to themselves and others may have their rights to keep and bare arms removed by the state, by the precedent that the state may deprive such persons of their right to liberty by means of civil commitment;
despite existing and unconstitutional state (and federal?) laws, no other test should be placed upon persons who are citizens of majority age excercizing their rights to keep and bare arms, including in such privately owned locations as motor vehicles.


Compelling State Interest is a well-established legal principle that allows the state to deny certain extreme applications of otherwise guaranteed rights, even constitutional rights such as freedom of speach (false emergency, state secrets, slander, verbal assault, etc.) and freedom of religion (forced clitorectomy of minors, human sacrifice, etc.):
Compelling State Interest prevents private citizens from keeping and baring such extremely destructive armaments as WMDs (nuclear arms, biotoxins, etc.);
the writings and principles ("Federalist Papers", etc.) underlying the formulation of the Second Amendment establish the right of the people to keep and bare arms sufficient to counter those possessed by the government agents tasked with directly governing them:
therefor the people have the right to keep and bare arms of the sort possessed and used by the various state and federal police agencies who are tasked with law enforcement within the national borders;
such arms represent the minimum level of lethality of the arms that the people are guaranteed the right to keep and bare, and do not inherently represent a maximum, that is, the people may have the right to keep and bare even more lethal arms;
in the event of the invokation of the War Powers Act (martial law), military personal equiped with military arms superior to those that the people have the right to keep and bare may be governing some or all of the people; however, in such a situation all constitutional rights may be suspended in the first place; the needs of security in governmental buildings, such as schools and courtrooms (as well as in any private building as determined by its owner(s)) may be invoked under the principle of Compelling State Interest (or of property owners' rights) to prevent persons from baring arms within them.

a balance between Compelling State Interest and constitutionally guaranteed rights should be applied to prevent infringement of the right of the people to possess arms sufficient to counter those of the government agents tasked with governing them, while preventing the people from possessing WMDs and other lesser, yet still extreme, military level arms:
in consideration of the War Powers Act, the underlying principle of the people possessing the tools to overthrow a government that has decayed into tyranny might be better served by extending the rights guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment;
in consideration of the dangers posed by modern arms, relative to those posed by arms as they existed during the time of the writing of the Constitution, Compelling State Interest might be better served by limiting the rights guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment;
such changes would have to be effected by laws, and in the latter case, by constitutional amendment;
I take no position at this time as to whether or not such changes should be undertaken.

So that we can claim self-defense when we unload several clips into them. Duh.

If you know how to use the gun properly then you will not need several clips.
just one bullet per bad guy.

And another monster thread of flame is brought into the world.

*Watches Thread burn down*

*Adds petrol for extra burn*

*Watches Thread burn down*

*Adds petrol for extra burn*
*Places large gauze around thread to create more heat*

*Puts marshmallow on end of stick*

This is just the kind of hyperbole I expect from anyone who opposes gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Not a single opponent can give a single example of where gun control, i.e. banning gun ownership, has improved public safety. The main argument that I see is that because it seems "bad" to own gun, it should be illegal.

Obviously Druthulhu is either baiting those of us with common sense into a rash reply, or Druthulhu doesn't understand the position that we take. Let me make it clear, the position that I and many others support is to allow unrestricted gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. That doesn't include criminals.

Regards, y'all

No you are totally wrong about my motives. My title was just to mock whomever started that other thread. My actual views should be clear from my last post. In short, I do not oppose gun ownership by law-abiding citizens at all. In fact I should be allowed to carry an uzi in reach of my driver's seat. What I oppose is crass generalization, which I mock by example. ;)

If you know how to use the gun properly then you will not need several clips.
just one bullet per bad guy.
Double or triple tap is better. Especially with a pistol. Unless, of course, you went fancy and drilled a hole through the guy's head.

If you know how to use the gun properly then you will not need several clips.
just one bullet per bad guy.
If your only concern is killing them, sure. But there are times when nothing less than overkill will do. These times occur more often than one might think.

But seriously, folks, I'm impressed by the original poster's stance on gun rights. Very thorough... or at least I assume as much, since it has a lot of words in it.

If your only concern is killing them, sure. But there are times when nothing less than overkill will do. These times occur more often than one might think.

But seriously, folks, I'm impressed by the original poster's stance on gun rights. Very thorough... or at least I assume as much, since it has a lot of words in it.
Aren't you supposed to be a prof.?

Don't people see the obvious???

More guns = Fewer shootings.

It's simple math, guys!

Yep, normal inverse relationship.

One question, How do I tell a law abiding person from a criminal? I mean they would by definition have access to false doc's etc?

One question, How do I tell a law abiding person from a criminal? I mean they would by definition have access to false doc's etc?
A criminal is much less likely to use a gun if there is an increased chance of his death.

A criminal is much less likely to use a gun if there is an increased chance of his death.

So only law abiding people buy guns then? If so who does all the shooting?

To refer back, Fewer guns = fewer shootings.

There is no need for a poeples milita guys.

One question, How do I tell a law abiding person from a criminal? I mean they would by definition have access to false doc's etc?

If you have shot him, he was a criminal. Be sure to put that other unregestered gun in his hand afterwards.

So... everyone is debating the topic in the title and no one is talking about the underlying topic: rejection of crass generalization and comprimise on a middle ground policy based upon the actual wording of the law, such as that which I have put forth? :D I am SO proud of us all!

So... everyone is debating the topic in the title and no one is talking about the underlying topic: rejection of crass generalization and comprimise on a middle ground policy based upon the actual wording of the law, such as that which I have put forth? :D I am SO proud of us all!

Well, I agree w/ you on the crass generalizations. I don't know how many times I've been called and ignorant redneck gunnut on threads like this when most of the replys to my posts consist of little more than (insert South Park voice here) "Guns 'r' bad, M'kay?"

I do however disagree w/ your interpretation of the wording of the law so now I'm going to have to hunt you down and blow you away you liberal fascist pinko commie gun banning scum. :)

Well, I agree w/ you on the crass generalizations. I don't know how many times I've been called and ignorant redneck gunnut on threads like this when most of the replys to my posts consist of little more than (insert South Park voice here) "Guns 'r' bad, M'kay?"

I do however disagree w/ your interpretation of the wording of the law so now I'm going to have to hunt you down and blow you away you liberal fascist pinko commie gun banning scum. :)

Well I'll be waiting w/my .22 semi-auto w/scope. But before you resort to criminality, why don't you critque my interpretation? :D

Well I'll be waiting w/my .22 semi-auto w/scope. But before you resort to criminality, why don't you critque my interpretation? :D

I can shoot farther than you can! Nyah nyah!

Actually the only thing I could take issue w/ (if I read it correctly) is the purchasing/selling thing. "Secrecy" is a loaded word that gun banners have used in the past. the "what are you trying to hide" kind of thing. While I believe some paperwork is needed, I generally distrust paper trails when it comes to civil rights.

A criminal is much less likely to use a gun if there is an increased chance of his death.

A criminal is much more likely to just shoot you in the head before you can respond if he believes you might also have a gun.

A criminal is much more likely to just shoot you in the head before you can respond if he believes you might also have a gun.

So THAT'S why the crime rate has increased by -10% in CC states!

So THAT'S why the crime rate has increased by -10% in CC states!

"An armed society is a polite society" -- (I forgot who said it)

This is just the kind of hyperbole I expect from anyone who opposes gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Not a single opponent can give a single example of where gun control, i.e. banning gun ownership, has improved public safety. The main argument that I see is that because it seems "bad" to own gun, it should be illegal.

gun control != gun ban

gun control != gun ban

Now, there's a touch of brilliance!

Thanks for setting me straight.

Why do Conservatives want criminals to have free access to any and all weapons?
Ok, I'm Libertarian and I am against gun control, but not necessarily because it's moral/immoral.

It's because many of the statistics I've seen show that gun control doesn't work as well as we'd hope.

No you are totally wrong about my motives. My title was just to mock whomever started that other thread. My actual views should be clear from my last post. In short, I do not oppose gun ownership by law-abiding citizens at all. In fact I should be allowed to carry an uzi in reach of my driver's seat. What I oppose is crass generalization, which I mock by example. ;)

But, sometimes, don't the stereotypes just fit to a T? Democrats and irrational thinking is a perfect combination. Republicans and legislated morality is another generalization that just fits. Maybe the problem is the identification of liberal and conservative with political parties, rather than with social and economic thought.

An Uzi in Atlanta traffic...that could be fun.

If the government is allowed to take away the second amendment, what is to prevent the statist from taking your other rights? I'm not a conservative. I don't know anything about free guns for criminals.

I know of no state in the Union that allows a convicted felon to own a handgun (or other firearm, come to think of it.)

I know of no political organization in the US that advocates allowing people with criminal records to own weapons.

I do know that many groups seem to think the only way to keep criminals from having weapons is to take them away from honest citizens.

And that is the difference between "conservative" and "liberal" on this one: a conservative feels you should have the right to own a firearm until you have proven you don't deserve that right. A liberal wants to protect you from yourself and others by taking away your guns, no matter that you may be an expert with them and have never hurt anything more than paper targets.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

As much proof as there is that Liberals want to completely ban all guns. ;) So... yeah... this is just me venting about the crass generalization in another thread's title. Have fun! :D

- I am in favour of the Second Amendment, as worded, no more and no less, within the bounds of Compelling State Interest:


sane and law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bare arms, which should not be infringed, a well ordered militia being yadda yadda yadda:
to have and sell or trade in secrecy goes beyond keeping and baring, and is thus not a constitutionally guaranteed right;
to use in an untracable manner goes beyond keeping and baring, and is thus not a constitutionally guaranteed right;
persons convicted of violent crimes including crimes of threats of violence may have their rights to keep and bare arms removed by the state, by the precedent that the state may deprive convicted felons of such central rights as the right to vote;
persons legally determined to be mentally unsound to the extent of presenting a danger to themselves and others may have their rights to keep and bare arms removed by the state, by the precedent that the state may deprive such persons of their right to liberty by means of civil commitment;
despite existing and unconstitutional state (and federal?) laws, no other test should be placed upon persons who are citizens of majority age excercizing their rights to keep and bare arms, including in such privately owned locations as motor vehicles.


Compelling State Interest is a well-established legal principle that allows the state to deny certain extreme applications of otherwise guaranteed rights, even constitutional rights such as freedom of speach (false emergency, state secrets, slander, verbal assault, etc.) and freedom of religion (forced clitorectomy of minors, human sacrifice, etc.):
Compelling State Interest prevents private citizens from keeping and baring such extremely destructive armaments as WMDs (nuclear arms, biotoxins, etc.);
the writings and principles ("Federalist Papers", etc.) underlying the formulation of the Second Amendment establish the right of the people to keep and bare arms sufficient to counter those possessed by the government agents tasked with directly governing them:
therefor the people have the right to keep and bare arms of the sort possessed and used by the various state and federal police agencies who are tasked with law enforcement within the national borders;
such arms represent the minimum level of lethality of the arms that the people are guaranteed the right to keep and bare, and do not inherently represent a maximum, that is, the people may have the right to keep and bare even more lethal arms;
in the event of the invokation of the War Powers Act (martial law), military personal equiped with military arms superior to those that the people have the right to keep and bare may be governing some or all of the people; however, in such a situation all constitutional rights may be suspended in the first place; the needs of security in governmental buildings, such as schools and courtrooms (as well as in any private building as determined by its owner(s)) may be invoked under the principle of Compelling State Interest (or of property owners' rights) to prevent persons from baring arms within them.

a balance between Compelling State Interest and constitutionally guaranteed rights should be applied to prevent infringement of the right of the people to possess arms sufficient to counter those of the government agents tasked with governing them, while preventing the people from possessing WMDs and other lesser, yet still extreme, military level arms:
in consideration of the War Powers Act, the underlying principle of the people possessing the tools to overthrow a government that has decayed into tyranny might be better served by extending the rights guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment;
in consideration of the dangers posed by modern arms, relative to those posed by arms as they existed during the time of the writing of the Constitution, Compelling State Interest might be better served by limiting the rights guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment;
such changes would have to be effected by laws, and in the latter case, by constitutional amendment;
I take no position at this time as to whether or not such changes should be undertaken.

Good post! Well thought out...no wonder nobody responded ;)

Good post! Well thought out...no wonder nobody responded ;)

LOLIRL :D

thanks

But, sometimes, don't the stereotypes just fit to a T? Democrats and irrational thinking is a perfect combination. Republicans and legislated morality is another generalization that just fits. Maybe the problem is the identification of liberal and conservative with political parties, rather than with social and economic thought.

An Uzi in Atlanta traffic...that could be fun.

Sometimes all stereotypes fit to a T: if we look hard enough I am sure that we can find plenty of 1) greedy jewish bankers; 2) lazy black welfare cheats; 3) hateful muslim terrorists; 4) etc.; 5) etc.; 6) etc. Most stereotypes have real-life examples that the stereotypers use to justify their generalizations, but that does not make those generalizations any less wrong or offensive.

Except when they're about those cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the French! :D

j/k ;)

I can shoot farther than you can! Nyah nyah!

Actually the only thing I could take issue w/ (if I read it correctly) is the purchasing/selling thing. "Secrecy" is a loaded word that gun banners have used in the past. the "what are you trying to hide" kind of thing. While I believe some paperwork is needed, I generally distrust paper trails when it comes to civil rights.

By the same argument, registration should not be required to vote.

*Places large gauze around thread to create more heat*

*Puts marshmallow on end of stick*
What're you doing roasting me national animal? LET IT GO!!!

By the same argument, registration should not be required to vote.

Maybe that's why so many states in the U.S. resist the idea of providing positive identification when registering or when voting? They are just against leaving a paper trail...But that's not the subject.

I object to excessive documentation, as well. There's a counter argument here just waiting to be used. If I can only be quick enough to see it.

The exercise of either right requires certain qualifications. The right to vote requires citizenship, proper age, lack of felony convictions... think the age and citizenship requirements are actually part of the Constitution and further amendments. And for those that think everyone deserves only one vote, there needs to be some bookkeeping. I would suppose that just voting for a national candidate, all one should have to prove is citizenship. It's the state and local elections that need some more documentation.

The right to own and carry a weapon requires nothing special, constitutionally that is. It has been decided that felons and minors shouldn't purchase weapons and that felons can not possess them. And there are other requirements for sales and possession that have been introduced along the way. But there isn't any compelling need to register weapons sales, nor to log the transfer of a weapon, so long as the basic eligibility requirement is met. In other words, there is no interest to the state in having a record of firearms transactions.

Maybe a closer model would be automobile sales. There the record keeping is required for tax purposes, not to prove that one meets constitutional requirements. Since there isn't any right to auto ownership, I guess we can't draw a parallel there, either.

I'm not overwhelmed by this argument, but it's the best I can do extemporaneously. Down here, in Georgia, we'd rather just fight it out.

Voting is interesting because the constitutional right to vote has been amended four times. The right to bear arms has never been amended.

Regards,