Originally Posted By SuperDry It's also interesting that when John Ashcroft's DOJ wrote the Patriot Act, one thing conspicuously absent was any additional restriction on the purchase of a gun. As a result, someone on the terrorist watch list is able to buy a gun without their purchase being rejected by the instant background check (assuming that they don't also have a criminal record). It seems to be fine to have one's library records perused and phone calls and internet traffic tapped for no reason, and innocent people by the tens of thousands unable to board airplanes without a hassle because their names are similar to that of a terrorist, but if an actual terrorist walks into a gun store, they're able to buy a gun because gun purchased aren't checked against the watch list. This is how important this issue is to "the base."
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions>>> Yes but it didn't begin nor end there. Madison did not INVENT the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions. and furthermore: Before you passively say that the 2nd amendment only applies to a militia that is under the control of the government, for purposes only concerning the British, you have to consider that the Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 were not numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. In fact "The right to keep and bear arms" was not intended to be inserted into Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became "today's" Second Amendment was intended to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals. So really today's 2nd amendment was originally intended to be exactly what it says regardless of the British, the right to "keep and bear arms." And I might add that to date, the Supreme Court agrees, or does not disagree is more the case I suppose. ^^^This according to the respected University of Chicago Law Review. So it really doesn't matter why some people place a high value on owning a gun. The issue to me is simply this, I want to keep all of the rights that the Constitution gives me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So it really doesn't matter why some people place a high value on owning a gun. The issue to me is simply this, I want to keep all of the rights that the Constitution gives me." It absolutely matters why. If the Constitution gave you the right to cross-dress at work without fear of reprisal, would you defend that with as much fervor? Why are some people so adamant about their right to own a firearm?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The Patriot act has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. ACLU drops challenge to part of Patriot Act By The Associated Press 10.30.06 DETROIT — The American Civil Liberties Union has dropped a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. The ACLU said on Oct. 27 that it was withdrawing the lawsuit filed more than three years ago because of "improvements to the law." The Justice Department argued last month that amendments approved by Congress in March 2006 had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act. The ACLU said the revisions allow people receiving demands for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demands in court.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder DVC- the first quote in post 22- what post did that come from? I don't see it anywhere.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I think I figured it out. But I'm confused as to how that whole post started and ended.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'll confess I have little patience for guns. Perhaps it's too many run-ins with people who, while otherwise normal, insist on going completely psycho when you suggest gun control isn't such a bad idea. It's also difficult to take the arguments of many gun owners seriously when one looks at the statistics from countries where guns are outlawed. I've been target shooting with handguns and rifles, and I'll confess I've felt that over-inflated sense of power and control. I can't help but think too many gun owners are insecure men who like to feel tough and manly. I genuinely do understand that most gun owners aren't going to break the law. But there comes a time when a situation gets bad enough that it's time to say "Your right to hunt and kill a defenseless animal just isn't that important." And I'll admit I have no statistics (and any that exist would most likely be biased towards pro- and anti-NRA), but I see kids killing themselves, Virginia Tech, Columbine, even hunting accidents on the news. I sure don't recall reading about or seeing a rapist gunned down in a home by a Charles Bronsonesque homeowner. Frankly, the fear Americans (gun owners or not) seem to have of being harmed by intruders is largely based on our overexposure to 24/7 news media. The chances are tiny you'll be a victim; the chances aren't as tiny your kid or someone else's kid won't find that gun you've squirreled away to blow away the boogey man that will never come.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< If the Constitution gave you the right to cross-dress at work without fear of reprisal, would you defend that with as much fervor? Why are some people so adamant about their right to own a firearm?>>> If the constitution allowed that, yes I would most certainly defend it with as much fervor. Yes I would. <<<Why are some people so adamant about their right to own a firearm?>>> I'll try to answer honestly and openly. For me, a very large part of it has to do with being raised around firearms all my life. Hunting (and fishing and 4-wheeling) and the like, was a lot of our pastime growing up. Virtually ALL of my relatives have (not just a few) guns, but many firearms and for many different types of hunting. I live in Atlanta now, but coming from a very very small town in the deep south, we didn't have a whole lot of other stuff to do. And probably not unrelated to the size of the town and county, I have a very large number of cousins, uncles, (and my father in fact) that are now serving or have served in the military. I guess "GUNS" the whole idea of owning firearms just isn't a big deal at all to me. We have lots of family memories and stories, even traditions really that are related in some way to firearms. It's still a big deal when I get a phone call from a nephew back in my ol' hometown; all excited that he got his first turkey. Some of us know that Turkey hunting is one of the most dangerous kinds of hunting. When I was a kid I knew it, they taught us kids safety above ALL else. Or it may be a cousin of mine calling last year, and we get around to him telling me with pride that his son finally got that big buck he himself was after for years. Or I remember my father, when I was very young, taking me out to freeze during Thanksgiving break up in a deer stand out in the middle of nowhere. Not a problem as long as we had Venison or "deer meat BBQ" on Thanksgiving Day, like we always had before. I was never much for actual shooting but I loved to go especially deer hunting. The mind is at peace in such a setting. You can stretch out and relax your mind and enjoy getting away from it all for a while. Personally I used to fall back asleep when I'd go with my dad, but anyway... Then I have many memories of week long hunting trips to Nebraska and Iowa for pheasant. You get a good pair of dogs and it's amazing. Sitting in a wet duck blind for hours to get off a few frenzied shots, and maybe just maybe you get one, was never my thing, but my dad sure loved it. "Well all of that has nothing to do with some guy in the suburbs owning a pistol." True but, Doesn't it? I remember my uncle shooting a 6 foot rattle snake with his pistol when I was maybe 7 years old. My cousin (his son) and I had just been playing in the pile of burnt logs where he spotted it. I'll never forget, he ran us inside, grabbed his pistol, ran back out, and no more rattle snake. Sure there are people want to take all guns away. But I just can't see it that way at all. There are people that say you don't have to hunt. You can go to the grocery store. This is true, but come on, shooting a pheasant is no different than slaughtering a cow when you get right down to it. I don't know if you can see that. But someone like me would be far more apt to ask "Why do some people get so adamant about wanting to take my firearms away from me?" Hunting and shooting was like baseball to us growing up, and I can't see anything wrong with that.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<DVC- the first quote in post 22- what post did that come from? I don't see it anywhere.>> It wasn't supposed to be a quote, I accidentally pasted that in quotes << >>. I didn't do a very good job with that post. Sorry, I'll clarify it and give back up doc tomorrow. I'm really not trying to wiggle out of accountability but it's very late here.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I sure don't recall reading about or seeing a rapist gunned down in a home by a Charles Bronsonesque homeowner. >>> Then you obviously haven't been reading the monthly section called "Armed Citizen" in the NRA magazines, which provide at least a page of clippings from newspapers about citizens defending themselves with guns.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The Patriot act has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. >>> Not directly, except the glaring absence of any restrictions on firearms purchase in the post-9/11 world provides a very telling glimpse into the views of the 2nd amendment by the authors of the Patriot Act.
Originally Posted By ecdc I find the Second Amendment arguments to be most comical. First, the amendment was about the Founder's fears of a standing army, which could be used by a leader to usurp power. The need to have a militia of the people at hand, and who could supply their own arms, was essential when the amendment was penned. But more comical, since the majority of gun owners (at least the gung ho, NRA types) tend to be conservative Republicans, it's curious that when it comes to the Second Amendment, we should bow down in reverence, but for the First Amendment, we hear outrage that the Founding Fathers never possibly meant for it to mean how it's interpreted today. We hear that the Founding Fathers would be appalled to know the First Amendment was being used to restrict prayer in school, or to allow the kind of free speech the ACLU champions. But apparently when they wrote the Second Amendment, they intended that anyone should be able to stroll down the street with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder. (Ok, allow me my bit of hyperbole.) I can at least respect someone (even if I disagree) who says that the Second Amendment did used to mean one thing, but, like many parts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it's evolved and been interpreted by our courts to mean something else. That's at least honest, unlike the idea that the amendment meant you can have a 9mm under your pillow.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Perhaps it's too many run-ins with people who, while otherwise normal, insist on going completely psycho when you suggest gun control isn't such a bad idea.>>> I think "better" gun control is a great idea. <<It's also difficult to take the arguments of many gun owners seriously when one looks at the statistics from countries where guns are outlawed.>> With the exception of Japan, I disagree totally. <<I can't help but think too many gun owners are insecure men who like to feel tough and manly.>> Perhaps for some, but not for the millions of sportsmen out there in the rural areas. <<"Your right to hunt and kill a defenseless animal just isn't that important.">> Give me a break unless you are Vegan. Do you really think the cow you ate at Longhorn Steakhouse was more humanely "put down"? <<I sure don't recall reading about or seeing a rapist gunned down in a home by a Charles Bronsonesque homeowner.>> I don't either but it does happen. This happened here near me. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/37p6kf" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/37p6kf</a> Read the whole thing before making judgements.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I can at least respect someone (even if I disagree) who says that the Second Amendment did used to mean one thing, but, like many parts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it's evolved and been interpreted by our courts to mean something else.>>> Okay then what DOES it mean ecdc? And I like the "I can at least respect [those whom I disagree with if they only admit I am right] the Second Amendment did used to mean one thing, but, like many parts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it's evolved and been interpreted by our courts to mean something else" argument. That isn't even a logical argument. You bascially are saying that you respect only those who see things your way. Gee that's a new twist.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "If the Constitution gave you the right to cross-dress at work without fear of reprisal..." What - you're saying that it doesn't????
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The second amendment was intended to help fight off the British and form armed militias. It's really interesting to see how some people feel like a gun is another appendage. What's the appeal?< Yet the Swiss mandate ownership for adult males and don't have these issues. Now they have gun ownership for the same reason the 2nd amendment granted the right -- as for full disclosure I do not own a gun as I just don't see a need. Yet if I did see a need I would like to know I could own one...after proper background checks etc. And I learned how to shoot when younger from my dad who was a military sharpshooter in WWII. So I respect them and would know what to do with one, but just don't want one in my house today.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Also I forgot to add ireland to this list. Most families, especially those on farms own guns as I found out when we visited my wifes family there....and yet they are not mowing each other down and having drive bys etc... the question we need to ask is why ?
Originally Posted By debtee The government in Australia took a hard line on gun ownership after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania. All automatic rifles had to be handed in to the authorities and destroyed. I just heard on our evening news that the state of Virginia has laws that make it very easy to purchase a gun with no license needed and no waiting time after purchase. I wonder why they make it so easy to purchase a gun?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Registration is ALWAYS the beginning of total across the board removal of guns and punishing those who would only protect themselves and their families.<< Since when? We register our cars, we register our pets, we register any number of things. There has been no wholesale confiscation of anything. >>GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?<< The media doesn't visit for the same reason I don't. It's a statistical blip on the landscape. (And frankly, before this thread I had no idea Kennesaw had passed such a law. And I worked in Decatur for several months a few years back.) First of all, there's no evidence that most households in Kennesaw are adhering to the law. There are many loopholes (thanks to those meddlesome folks at the ACLU). Specifically: >>Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony. The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law.<< <a href="http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rense.com/general9/ gunlaw.htm</a> As far as the plummet in crime, that's as much the result of statistical magic as anything else: >>Criminologist and gun-control critic Gary Kleck attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law (Kleck, 1991), and Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime... Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991).<< <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K ennesaw</a>,_Georgia >>So it really doesn't matter why some people place a high value on owning a gun. The issue to me is simply this, I want to keep all of the rights that the Constitution gives me.<< No one here, as far as I can see, is suggesting taking away the constitutional right to own and use guns. Arguments have been advanced to suggest that this right should be subject to specific restrictions. The Constitution addresses many rights and freedoms, many of which are subject to a variety of restrictions. You can't marry your cousin. You can't sell tainted meat, even if you inform the buyer it is tainted. You can't intentionally publish slander in our free press.
