I'd like to remind everyone that PERSONAL Attacks will not be tolerated.

I would like to suggest the use of "It's My opinion"........without.


[font color=red]Dennis

FTE Assistant Adminstrator
[/font]

[link: motorhaven.autoanything.com|How YOU Can Support This Site]

http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/canada_flag_animated.gif

[link:www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Mil1ion.html|My Website,"North Of The 49th"]

[link:www.ford-trucks.com/guidelines.html|Club FTE]
http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Minimorleytruck.JPG
[font color=blue]78 F-150 429CJ,Silver,Explorer Pkg.
64 1/2 Mustang Pre-World's Fair Car #8092
68-Mustang 289 2v-Sunlit Gold
[/font]

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-Jul-02 AT 04:19 AM (EST)]Well, I don't have a gun at the ready everytime I answer the door, in fact I have never answered the door with a loaded gun in my hand. But I guess that also would depend on the neighborhood I live in, or if a mob were roaming the streets. Is an armed populace a deterant against an attack? Does the criminal element know which house might be armed and which ones are not? If a criminal knows, then I think he will select the easiest target. After all, doesn't he want to get away without being shot? I think it's better to have a fighting chance than have no chance at all. And I don't think I am important enough for the terroists come to my house to take me out, unless they thought I was Jewish and hated me enough to blow me away for that reason alone. And who knows for sure? That's why they are called terroists. Everybody is getting ready for the next big attack. Who is preparing for the small attack?

>DailyDriver,
>If a law was enacted to take away my freedoms, that would be
>all of our fault for electing such people to office. That is
>one of the reasons I get so angry over some peoples reasons
>for who they vote for. Regardless of a politicians stance on
>the other HUNDREDS of issues, they will single out one
>issue.

I don't blame you. I get mad and frustrated too. But if you reread my post I did state that uninformed people can be like sheep being led away to the slaughter by self seeking politicians.

Yes, we are the people. We are the government. I don't know how we can look at government as being corrupt and the being cause of all our problems without looking at ourselves first. Before we place all the blame on the politicians we need to place some of the blame on ourselves. A corrupt people will elect a corrupt government. For those reading this, we may choose to believe it or not but this concept comes from the Bible. As for me, I believe.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-Jul-02 AT 08:27 AM (EST)]Dayton,
"once you anti-gun"

You really need to read others posts. I never said I was anti-gun. You claim I am. Not so. I currently own a black powder rifle and over the last year have given some thought to starting a collection of WWII weapons.
I am also not interested in banning all weapons. That is another statement that you extremists like to use. You always claim that once someone takes an inch, they will comeback and want the mile. Relax, take a chill pill. Despite some of your extremist views, not everyone is an extremist.

'you say that this is unethical and totally reject it because killing a live animal is inhumane"
What dribble! I think it is time for you to check your medication. Is this a representation of what your posts are? Do you always make such assumptions and go around putting words in other peoples mouths? You are the exact reason I believe in waiting periods and background checks. You can't see the forest for the trees! I love meat and I have hunted. If God didn't want us to eat animals, they wouldn't be made of meat, right?

"do you think it grows on trees"
Like I said, no clue. I don't know why people like you need to go off on some little tantrum like this. Maybe it is the immaturity due to your age, but if that isn't the case, and you continue this loss of touch with reality, I feel sorry for all of us old farts that will live in a country run by the likes of you.

It is one thing to mis-understand what someone writes, which can happen easily here. I know, I have done it myself. It is a whole other matter to fabricate stories and tell lies. That is just not right. Respond to what I say, not to what you think I mean. Once I saw your age, I seriously thought about ignoring you, but that is the irresponsible thing to do. If I don't respond, what will you have to think about?

 

DailyDriver,
Yes, I agree with you about the corrupt electing the corrupt. Politicians do what pays them the highest, though. Right now, the NRA is powerful. They have lots of members and lots of money. If tomorrow some extremist anti-gun group started lobbying and donating millions of $$$ to our elected officials, guess what side they would be on then? Any group that tries to sway a politician in their favor with bribes, cash, votes, etc, is as corrupt as the politician being swayed.

I think the only thing keeping the 2nd Amendment from the toilet right now is the money from the NRA. I don't want gun bans or extreme gun control measures. But I also don't want the minority paying off the politicians to keep the 2nd Amendment alive.

You are correct on having an informed, well educated public. I think most people would be against gun bans if they thought a little more control could protect them. Everyone says guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is true, but there are far too many irresponsible people with guns. All the kids that shoot themselves with daddy's gun. All the husbands that come home and find their wives in bed with someone else. All the borderline lunatics that manage to stay out of psycho wards. These are people that should not be allowed weapons. How do you stop these things from happening? If you ask uninformed John Q Public, his response is going to be "ban guns"! That is an extreme answer to a group (the NRA) that wants the other extreme. There needs to be a compromise by both sides. If not, I think eventually the NRA is going to lose. If government amends the Constitution to ban guns, what will NRA members do? I am sure many will comply. The law is the law. I am also certain there will be many holdouts (who will then be criminals) that will be crying "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment", while in some kind of standoff with the ATF. They will die, along with some of the ATF guys, and the rest of the NRA members will shout "foul". Sorry, the ATF would only be enforcing the law. The criminals got what they deserve, right? After all, they were breaking the law that is being enforced because they would not give and inch, because they thought everyone wanted a mile. Right now the NRA is not giving an inch. They are holding out just fine. If they gave that inch, couldn't they stop it there, just as they are doing now? Does everything have to be taken to the extreme?

 

Dayton,

Sorry, but I forgot the rest of your education. Cows and chickens are not shot. Cows are stunned and then their neck is slit. Chickens have their heads chopped off. I know pigs and hogs used to be shot, but I don't know for sure if they still are. Guns were invented to kill people, and most improvements in the way they operate were made to make killing people that much quicker, easier, and efficient. Hunting is done very well with a 30.06 or a shotgun. Semi-auto fire is not required to take down a deer or a duck. Handguns are for killing people, period. In Michigan, handguns were not allowed for hunting. I don't know if that is still true, or what other states ban handguns for hunting. I don't need to hunt anymore, so I don't know the laws that pertain to hunting.

One other thing. This pertains to all posts written by all. I try to voice an educated opinion on things I think I know about. I may sometimes be mis-informed, or plain wrong, myself. I appreciate, and continue myself, the quest for knowledge. If I am wrong (which can only be applied to factual matters, not opinions) on any subject, ever, I will gladly accept the input and education from those of you that are more informed. I will respond negatively, however, to rants about how you JUDGE me based on our differing "opinions" on a matter. I am not a stupid person, but that does not mean I don't say stupid things from time to time. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't attack my character, at least until we meet and have a beer, and then you discover that I may, indeed, be an idiot.

 

Wow, this thread is beginning to take a turn into meaness. I am sorry to see that because it should be a healthy debate of facts and observations. I try to leave my emotions at the doorstep of reasoning in highly charged debates like this one. There have been some very intellligent issues raised in this thread but demeaning text and personal inuendo diminshes the value of the debate.

Let's face it, there already is gun control in this country. It is really just a matter of how far the citizens will allow it to continue. The proverbial camel's nose is already in the tent. Let the citizens decide. Article V of our constitution provides for amending the document. It may be time to call a constitutioinal convention on the matter, but I don't think the gun control side could muster the votes to even call the convention of 2/3 of the House & Senate. And if they did, they would require 3/4 of the majority to change the amendment. The votes are just not there.

This is why you see legislation that chips away at the foundation of the amendment. This is why the NRA continues its vigilance against that legislation. This is why I write: "Bill of Rights, Void where prohibited by Law". Choose your side and act with your reasoning and intellect because this problem is not going away anytime soon. Those who are best organized and very well funded will be the victors. We are a reasonable people and I trust we will eventually settle this national dilemma. I hope it is soon because the gun control advocates continue to legislate back door solutions to a serious constitutional issue. This only undermines the entire document upon which our country and its freedom is founded. It seems as though the gun control advocates will stop at nothing to achieve their desired results. They seem to be willing to undermine the integrity of the very foundation of our government and the liberty it secures and protects. This is what we must prevent from happening. It is time to draw the line. Call the constitutiional convention if you can so Americans that want a outright total ban can stand up and be counted, as those who want to put an end to this type of legislative vagrancy. Let us be done with it, and abide by the vote. I am confident that the second amendment will survive intact because a 2/3 and 3/4 majority is lacking.

Compromises have already been made. The batlle lines need to be drawn and the war against this type of legislation that substitutes itself for Article V needs to be initiated. Once again, consider all of the facts and their consequences, choose your side and work for resolution. This is a serious constitutional issue and requires a settled resolution before we legislate away our rights and liberties that are guaranteed and protected by the very cornerstone of our freedom.

Remember, vote early and vote often. Brien

 

>
>You think if our forefathers fought the British with spears
>they
>would have won our freedom? A democracy (which we are not)


Rebocardo:

I am curious, if we don't live in a democratic republic, then what type of government do we have?

Also a little history here. The rebellion against King George, his Parliament, and the Brittish / Hessian Troops would have never been won with spears. You are quite correct. But you also overlook the fact the without the French support in money, arms, troops, and Naval capactity, the colonists would surely have lost the rebellion.

Many of the colonists that were poor, or even of the working class, did not own guns. They were too expensive. The country farmer and small time settler owned firearms because it was a necessity to them. The folks in the city and suburban areas that joined the Continental Army were issued rifles. Sidearms were normally only issued to officers.

The rebellion did not just pit colonist vs the Brittish/Hessian troops. The was a substantial number of "loyalists" in the colonies that pledged their support to the crown. They were afraid of losing their land if the rebellion were to collapse. They did what they could to undermine the cause for freedom. There were some mean street brawls in colonial America during the rebellion. Some loyalists were even burned out by unruly mob vigilantes and subsequently they relocated to England for protection.

The need for the second amendment arose out of a need during the rebellion and traces its roots back to fuedal England. From your posts, I feel you are anti-gun control, so I am just furnishing some amunition for your gun. I am of the position that enough is enough. Read my previous posts if you want to read more about the second amendment.

I also just wanted to ask the initial question above to get some idea of what type of government you believe we have here in the US.


Brien

 

Brien and Tim, I'm glad to see you both here and participating. You make for an interesting and worthwhile debate.

Brien, I think it was you (if not, correct me, please) that argued that the 2nd Amendment contains two separate and distinct concepts: (1) a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, "AND" (2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The actual language of the 2nd Amendment is "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." How do you find two separate rights or concepts there? The word "and" does not appear. Rather, the first section is a dependent clause than cannot stand alone, either as a matter of grammar or interpretation. There is no question that it is introductory and explanatory to the second section, and was never intended to stand on its own.

In any case, it wouldn't make sense on its own. To suggest otherwise would be to argue that the 2nd Amendment imposes a constitutional REQUIREMENT of a "well regulated militia." How could that be? Did the drafters intend that all citizens be required to serve in a "well regulated milita"? Is this a constitutional requirement for conscription and mandatory military service? That would certainly be inconsistent with every other portion of the Bill of Rights, which is concerned with limiting the power of the state and enhancing individual rights, not the other way around.

There is no legitimate basis for that argument, and no court has ever found two distinct rights or issues in the 2nd Amendment.

So what is the import of the "well regulated milita" language? Frankly, no one knows. All we know for sure is that it can shed some light on what the framers had in mind when they wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't believe it is limiting language, and cannot be fairly read to limit arms ownership to state militias. Still, it has some bearing on the meaning of the "right" itself.

I think you also suggested that the First Amendment guaranty of free speech is limited by our society's self-adopted rules of reasonableness. The example you gave was the classic one: the right to free speech does give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, because the ensuing panic may well result is someone getting injured. Still, the First Amendment is not limited in that way. We as a society have adopted limitations on the right to free speech that are necessary to ensure our collective welfare. You seem to have no problem with that.

You then argue, however, that "legislatures" take away rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. I don't see the distinction. As the legislature consists of the elected representatives of the people, any laws it adopts are, by definition, the will of the people. How is a law passed by a State Congress and signed by a governor that prohibits yelling "fire" in a crowded theater any different that a law passed by that same Congress and signed by that same governor that requires a background check to get a handgun permit, or prohibits gun possession by convicted felons, or that bans automatic weapons, any different? Both are limitations on a vague "right" that are adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people, in accordance with constitutional procedures and the democratic process, and presumably reflect the people's belief that they are necessary for the welfare of society.

If you accept that legislatures have the constitutional authority to adopt laws that reasonably restrict free speech, then you have to accept that they also have the authority to accept laws that reasonably restrict the right to keep and bear arms. The question, then, becomes where does that authority stop, i.e., where exactly are the boundaries of those rights. That question, of course, is debatable, and we'll never answer it here.

It has long been established, however, that the state and federal governments do have the right to regulate and restrict private ownership and use of firearms. The Second Amendment does not and will not prevent that regulation. The question we should be asking is what sorts of regulations and restrictions are tolerable and make sense, not whether any regulation at all is permissible.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-Jul-02 AT 11:46 PM (EST)]>One other thing. This pertains to all posts written by all.
>I try to voice an educated opinion on things I think I know
>about. I may sometimes be mis-informed, or plain wrong,
>myself. I appreciate, and continue myself, the quest for
>knowledge. If I am wrong (which can only be applied to
>factual matters, not opinions) on any subject, ever, I will
>gladly accept the input and education from those of you that
>are more informed. I will respond negatively, however, to
>rants about how you JUDGE me based on our differing
>"opinions" on a matter. I am not a stupid person, but that
>does not mean I don't say stupid things from time to time.
>Correct me if I am wrong, but don't attack my character, at
>least until we meet and have a beer, and then you discover
>that I may, indeed, be an idiot.

That is well said and I respect that.

 

I think a big part of the gun battle should be focus not on taking away guns from owners, but handling folks that are careless with their weapons. I own a 12 guarge shotgun and a glock and I was raised in a house where I knew what a gun could do, but my father still locked them up. Kids are curious. I think at one point in time, many of us touched our dad's gun without him knowing, think how easily that could have turned ugly.

I think parents should be punished if their kids that have access to their guns and are hurt. Let's all be responsible gun owners and choose to keep our guns under lock and key by our own free will. I'll always own a gun but I'll always own it responsibly and guard it even if there aren't kids around. I think that if more of us did that, we wouldn't have people trying to take our guns away.

 

Thanks, ultramagdan!
Wanna grab a beer?

bcwallace, you bring up a good point, but one of the reasons I feel the way I do is that we don't know, the majority of the time, who those people are that are not capable of being responsible gun owners. It is far too often that the irresponsible gun owner is only discovered AFTER he (or she) has shot and/or killed someone. Then, our "law enforcement, ha ha ha" steps in and tells everyone how safe we are because they have just apprehended the "bad guy". To me, that is too little, too late.

If you are going to use the reason (and I mean reason, not excuse) of home defense and security to own a gun, then the only way that gun can be effective is to have it loaded and readily available. If it is locked away somewhere, or is kept in one room unloaded, while the ammo is somewhere else, it defeats the purpose. If you don't have ready access, you can't defend yourself. A securely stored weapon is only a good defense if you have advance warning that someone is trying to do you harm.

I know my kids, and I could have a loaded weapon anywhere in my house, in plain view, and they would NEVER touch it. I could not, however, trust some of their friends to do the same. Believe me, if I thought I was in an area where I could possibly be harmed, I would consider a weapon for self defense, and I would have it unlocked and in easy reach, but that isn't the case. If you are in a situation like that in Michigan, you are living in poor conditions with poor schools and high crime. You would be better off moving. I don't know about some of your cities, so I can't comment. I also understand you can't keep running from problems, but a lot of the situations where someone ends up shot could be avoided. I don't believe any kind of gun control can eliminate unnecessary deaths, but i think too many innocent people die needlessly and we need to come up with some compromises that would benefit everyone and make everyone happy. It doesn't always have to be all or nothing. Just because people let that happen with other issues doesn't mean it has to happen here. Extreme policies in any direction are not good. People need to stop being so selfish and start considering what is good for the majority, instead of the current "American" way, where most people only consider what is best for the few, or the one.

Maybe gun controls are not the answer, but instead of telling me how they aren't the answer and how they won't work, tell me what will work! You have all been in the same situation. Somebody asks you what would you do if, or, how would you do this, and then they tell you your response sucks. If they didn't want to consider your answer, why did they ask you to begin with? Is it that people really want to hear someone elses view, or do they just want to hear everyone agree with their own? If my ideas or views don't fix anything, then so be it. In that case, come up with a better idea.

 

Karlsd:

I am very intruiged by your reply here on the forum. In one of your posts you stated that some argue that the 2nd amemndment guarantees the rights of the citizen to rise and overthrow a government and you stated that was not true. I am not sure if it is true or not, but my post # 64 will show you in Thomas Jefferson's own words that he did indeed approve of citizen rebellion. Since he is one of the authors of the 2nd amemendment, I think one can draw their own conclusions with regard to his statements and writings. Since Thomas Jefferson can't speak from the grave, we must research his writings and sources to try and decipher his meanings.

Now, as for the two concepts in the 2nd amendment, I would indeed maintain that is true. They are inter-related true, yet there are still two concepts. The first statement does indeed stand on its own. It states "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". So what I take the statement to mean is that a well regulated militia IS necessary to a free state. I know the exact wording of the amendment, this is not the issue. We must deal with the meaning. I realize that the amendment implies that the people maintain a militia, and I further have stated that the milita could not be construed to conscript all citizens to particiapte. This is why I maintain that there are two concepts here. It definitely says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore it allows all people to keep and bear arms. So it implies All people can keep and bear arms but it implies that only some of them would qualify to participate in the militia.

I fail to see how you can't understand that the amendment implies the concept of the militia, but then also goes on to state the concept that the right of the people......shall not be infringed.
Two ideas. A militia and a right to bear arms. I can't refute the courts interpretation of the second amendment over the last 200 plus years because I am not a scholar of the courts. Please cite case law where the courts support your statements with regard to the courts and the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I can then intelligently interpret what the courts have held.

The issue of lawmakers legislating away our rights in the constitution is clear to me. I have stated that limitations on our rights as a free people are perfectly acceptable when the good of those people is outweighed by the consequences of what we restrict as the limitation. A citizen ban on a SAM missle is appropiate because the overall safety of the people is justifiably in question when citizens use these weapons. This is not the case of simple firearms. The overall safety of the people is not in question with regard to citizens owning firearms, even if they choose to use them. This has not been demonstrated to be a overall threat to society in general. Should all of the armed citizens on one particular day, rise up and begin to rob and kill other unarmed citizens, then that would be a threat to the general safety of the population and a ban on firearms would be reasonable. But this is not the case, nor do I ever think it will be. This is why I chose the example of "screaming fire in the theater". So then, the question becomes: how is a total ban of handguns in New York City or Washington DC, outweigh the benefit of that right guaranteed and protected in our constitution?

The difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater and the application of a law for a permit to carry a handgun is as diffent as black and white. There is an immediate threat to the entire people in the theater upon screaming fire. There is no immediate threat for a law abiding citizen in carrying a handgun. That citizen may never choose to use the handgun. Even if he does, where is the immediate and iminent danger to the entire well being of the citizens in general? The "bad guys" are going to secure and carry firearms anyway, so what good does the background check and the permit do except to impose restrictions upon the law abiding citizen. Law abiding citizens are not a imminent and dangerous threat to the population in general. The theater screamer is an immediate and iminent danger to the well being and safety of those in the theater. We do not restrict the act of attending the theater but we do restrict what can be done in that theater. Therefore, the restrictions and the limitations should be imposed upon the criminals and felons, not the ordinary citizens.

You are correct that I do accept that legislatures have the authority to restrict and set boundaries to our rights as a free people. It is we, as a free people, who consent to self government that does this. However, it does not mean we are doing it correctly. The legislation sould be targeting those people who present an immediate and iminent danger to the overall society in general. (The fire screamer) Once again, we do not restrict peoples' attendence to the theater do we? We prosecute the fire screamer. This is why I vehemently oppose this back door legislation to restrict citizens in their rights that are guaranteed and protected by the constitution.

We in todays society, seem to be punishing the law abiding citizen, by restricting their God given rights guaranteed and protected by the constitution rather that punishing the criminals and "bad guys" that are the real cause for the initial legislation.
We are reacting to a problem in society by restrictions imposed upon citizens, rather than being pro-active in setting more severe penalties,and enforcement thereof, for those that violate all of our rights when they commit violent acts against a free society. Our current legislative solutions seem to be targeting the wrong group in our society.

I hope I have addressed all of you points in your last post to me. I very much enjoy exploring the 2nd amendment with you and welcome continued debate regarding these and any related issues. Good post karlsd.

Brien

 

I'll drink one with you!

Your points about having the firearm loaded and ready to use are well taken. I have enough firepower in my house to protect a city block or 2, no problem. However, it is all locked up, unloaded, and not readily available. Which brings up a point that if you need to keep a loaded gun for your protection - why are you living there?

I would love to be licensed to carry in Kansas. Would I carry after I had the permit? No. Because I wouldn't need to. But it would be nice to have the option. With kids in the house, you have to keep firearms secured. My boy is used to seeing firearms and knows that they are Dad's gun's and you don't touch them. It is remarkable to see the kids come over from the families that hide all firearms from the kids and if they see a small bit of what I have they get all exicted and say all sorts of things. While my son just kinda goes on like no big deal, dad is working on his stuff.

 

Gun Control, lets see i prefer the prone position, remember to hold your breath, an pull lightly on the triger. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. A criminal will always find a way to get a gun, so let me make my own choice to buy or not to buy a gun as alowed by the constitution last time i checked. Lock your guns for the kids safety.

Dave Powell