Myth #3 - Guns are bad

[mnischalke 0]

Check out the movie "Panther" sometime if you want to see the true roots of many current firearms laws.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[AggieDave 6]

So are you saying that an illiterate person is a mentally incompetent person? That may or may not be true, they may not have had the opportunities available to them that some of us have had through out our lives. It seems like from your past few posts you're really stereotyping.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I -do- believe gun education should be mandatory for gun ownership. If you want to go down some paranoid path that it would represent some sort of government licensing scheme destined to remove all guns from all civilians...

I tend to agree with gun safety education for all, but I can't talk myself into making it mandatory. My thinking goes like this:

Once the government makes it mandatory, then that means that there will have to be some kind of card issued once the class has been taken, certifying that you have completed the requirement.

And that means that you would have to present that card every time you want to purchase a gun, proving that you have fulfilled the prerequisite. So that card becomes a de facto gun owner license.

And the government would want to keep a national database of all these people who have taken the class, which becomes a national gun owner registry.

And then successive generations of anti-gun politicians would pile more and more requirements upon the education program that would be necesssary to pass the course and get the card, so that over time, more and more people would fail the course and be denied the right to purchase and own a gun.

Those are the things I can't bring myself to accept in order to agree with such a mandatory gun safety education program...

[mnischalke 0]

Or it's a matter that some folks just can't get past the fact that the Second Amendment is a compound sentence and is saying two distinct and independent things. Wait, oh no, the sentence must be complete and every word hinges on every other word... ha

I went down to the corner store today; I bought some ice cream.

Does that say where I bought the ice cream? No, but you infer that it was from the corner store because it is within the same sentence. But, I could have stopped at the Ben and Jerry's on the way back from the store. That doesn't take away from the fact that A) I went to the store, and B) I bought some ice cream.

You can go ahead and call the the Second Amendment vague and ignore the authors of it as well as their clear intent. You can thereby dismiss every other piece they wrote on the subject, which substantiates the "right of the people." I can only disagree and shake my head.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Huh, I thought illiterate just meant someone couldn't read or had no formal education. I had no idea they should be denied rights for those kinds of things.

Soooo, illiteracy is rampant among the poor and minorities (bear with me as I step to the next logical stone). Then, we should only let educated white folk have guns? Where have I heard this before?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ohhh...that was a good score right there. He got you with that one Quade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not really.

I don't recall saying that the government should mandate gun education for children. I did say it was a very good idea that parents should see their children do receive some education and that a lot of parents weren't up to the task and should seek outside guidance.

Wasn't referring to education. I was referring to you claiming that it should be an individual choice as to what is reasonable, and following that up with government requirements of manufacturing practices (e.g. pressure valve).

It should be the choice of the parents if they want their kid to have a bb gun with a valve, have one without a valve, or not have one at all.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I -do- believe gun education should be mandatory for gun ownership.

And I think gun education should be mandatory in public schools. Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Everyone has that right. Therefore, everyone should be educated regarding the responsibilities that go along with that. That way you can't restrict that right because of a technicality. If you want the government to put requirements on constitutional rights, than the government should provide the means to meet those requirements.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Some individual states have banned them completely from being owned. CA is one for sure.

yeah, I should have added the disclaimer: "nb - With 20,000+ guns laws on the books, I'm sure there's an exception to everything."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Of the three programs evaluated, the NRA Eddie Eagle Program best met the criteria."

And I'm not really doubting that.

What I'm sort of doubting is that you can really teach anything about mortality, reality and consequence to a preschool child. With that said, I question it's actual effectiveness.

A child who is taught in the Eddie Eagle program to "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" does not need to necessarily have a concept of mortality. All that is needed is the normal respect for parents' authority. If that means they know a spanking will follow if they do not adhere to instructions, then it's a workable program. If they know that a week without t.v. will follow, that's all that's necessary.

Who cares if they understand WHY they're being told to not touch guns? If some threat of punishment generates compliance -- and it does, with this program -- who cares why they comply? It's success no matter how you slice it.

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[gary350 0]

OK - I've been doing a lot of posting to political threads the last couple weeks, and it's been too long for me, watching all these gun debates and not weighing in.

So here's a picture of a poster with ONE of my feelings on the subject. . .

[mnischalke 0]

Diversity is awesome!

Mikie like the Kimber in the second row and that sexy Les Baer in the lower right.

dreamy

thanks for sharing

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Boy, that sure beats the racism, cough, ahem, sorry, Multiculturalism they preached at Maryland. And that browning is calling my name.

:::drool::: ah, Hi Poooooow-er

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[gary350 0]

Quote

:::drool::: ah, Hi Poooooow-er

Hi Power?!? That is So old-school!

And SOOOO cool! I have been DA-only for years now, but I learned on a factory-custom Hi Power in the early 80s - satin chrome, worked trigger, pachs. . . God I loved that gun - thousands and thousands of rounds thru it. [tearing up a little]

Bet you arch-consevative types never thought a pinko like me would be a gun nut, huh?

Truth be told though, I am for stronger gun laws - for everyone but me, that is. . .

[AggieDave 6]

Rosane Barr (sp?) seems to be the same. Well, she thinks guns should be banned, but her body guard should still be able to carry one.

Way to set an example there Rosane.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Why stop at the bicycle? Why not make em wear em whenever they leave the protection of their padded houses?

I had an A&P professor who deliberately bought and drove a Suburu for it's safety feature in front end collisions. The car would drop its engine and -not- shove it into the driver's compartment.

He -also- went as far as to wear a helmet when driving, too.

He made a point, but failed to convert any of his students to his safety practice...

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Douva 0]

Quote

Rosane Barr (sp?) seems to be the same. Well, she thinks guns should be banned, but her body guard should still be able to carry one.

Way to set an example there Rosane.

I think you're thinking of Rosie O'Donnell, Dave. She is very outspoken about her antigun views and has caught a lot of flack from the right, including the leaking of the tidbit of information you mentioned.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Kennedy 0]

Douva is right about the body guard thing being O'Donnell, but Barr is no better, with guns or looks.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Article II is very vaguely worded and The Supreme Court has not really clarified things such as the meaning of "in a state militia" or "of the people".

Let me get this straight. All of the following phrases refer to "the people":

- "right of the people to peaceably assemble"
- "right of the people to be secure in their homes"
- "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people"
- "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people..."

Yet when we switch to the Second Amendment:

- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

...somehow you think that word magically transmogrifies itself and actually refers to the state?

The term "right of the people" appears five times in the Bill of Rights. Why would anyone believe that the individual right protected by the Second Amendment be any different from the individual rights protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth or 10th Amendments?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Article II is very vaguely worded and The Supreme Court has not really clarified things such as the meaning of "in a state militia" or "of the people".

Here is what the Supreme Court has said about who "the people" are, as referred to in the Constitution.

Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico, and a drug dealer. The Mexican police arrested him in Mexico, and brought him to the U.S., where the U.S. cops arrested him. With the permission of the Mexican police, the U.S. narcs searched his residence (in Mexico), and found documentary evidence detailing drug shipments to the U.S. Verdugo-Urquidez moved for suppression of that evidence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The question for the court: Does the Fourth Amendment apply to non-resident non-citizens outside the U.S.? The answer: No.

Who are "the people"? According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the phrase "the people" was a term of art used by the Framers.

Rehnquist wrote:

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
- 110 S. Ct. at 1061.

Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth).

The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If "the people" really meant the
right of states to maintain a militia then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms.

[JohnRich 4]

Deseret News, Utah:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch says new Justice Department figures support longtime GOP claims that the best way to fight violence with guns is not to outlaw the guns, but to prosecute criminals.

"Data released Wednesday showed that as federal prosecution of gun crimes increased 68 percent from three years ago under the Bush administration, violent crimes dropped 21 percent."

Full Story