Andy9o8 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 1,635
Well, considering that Saint Ronald Reagan spoke in favor of a ban on "assault weapons" a number of times, and that the conservative dominated Supreme Court found it constitutional, I fail to see what all the 2nd Amendment fuss is all about anyway.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
muff528 3
QuoteWell, considering that Saint Ronald Reagan spoke in favor of a ban on "assault weapons" a number of times, and that the conservative dominated Supreme Court found it constitutional, I fail to see what all the 2nd Amendment fuss is all about anyway.
I don't think I've stated my position either way on the "gun control" question ...only on how the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted. (this stuff is extremely interesting to me). So, I'll just come right out and state my position. I could be for gun control or against it. I need more info before we loan the government that power ...specifically:
(1) how are various firearms going to be classified and how is any proposed regulation going to affect possession of each kind. (i.e., is an "assault weapon" going to be any firearm that merely "looks like" a military weapon or is it actually a fully automatic military weapon)?
(2) how will "crazy" be defined for this purpose, how will that be determined and by whom. Who oversees and evaluates this determination? How long before an "applicant" gets his answer? Will there be "levels" of craziness (you can have a single shot .410 but we're going to have to deny that Glock you were hoping to get)? What protections or procedures will be in place to ensure an applicant can dispute or contest a ruling of incompetence or craziness? Would it be possible for a person who has been deemed too crazy to own a firearm to still be allowed to drive a car? etc., etc.
(3) who is responsible for a mental evaluation gone bad ...one way or the other. What will be the penalties for falsely or incompetently making that decision and what protections will be in place for any shooting victims or for an applicant who is unfairly deemed crazy and denied his 2nd Amendment rights?
(4) after gun control takes effect, how are we going to deal with the actual problem of felons, criminals, or would-be criminals, getting guns illegally?
(5) other stuff.
kallend 1,635
Quote
(5) other stuff.
I'll take (5), Muff.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
muff528 3
QuoteQuote
(5) other stuff.
I'll take (5), Muff.
Yeah, I was pretty sure I left out a few other ways a citizen could be disenfranchised or bureaucratically abused. Ways that could reach far beyond 2nd Amendment rights. Fill me in.
In the National Archives and above the US Constitution is the Declaration of Independence, a "pre-Constitutional document as you refer to it. I've read all of the document so I am not "cherry picking" by zeroing in on the following language:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Now if the Declaration of Independence is no longer relevant, why is it STILL in the National Archives and still considered one of our most sacred documents? Do you suggest we remove it?
You are right, I don't see any language in the Constitution that justifies overthrow and rebellion. But let me direct you to the words of Lincoln;
"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the U.S. are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Now if the Declaration of Independence is no longer relevant, why is it STILL in the National Archives and still considered one of our most sacred documents? Do you suggest we remove it?
You are right, I don't see any language in the Constitution that justifies overthrow and rebellion. But let me direct you to the words of Lincoln;
"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the U.S. are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
Perhaps you may be right with respect to the invective. Then again, being stereotyped as a knuckle dragging, bitter clinging, backwoods, low intelligent, rednecked bigot by the other side is bit over the top as well. All attributes of the aforementioned, I am not. However, I would contend that some of the soundest wisdom imparted to me have come form those "backwoods low intelligence rednecks (hardly bigots) whom the other side views with abject contempt.
muff528 3
Quote........ the words of Lincoln;
"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the U.S. are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
Yes, this! But remember that Lincoln, himself, perverted the Constitution ...maybe.
muff528 3
Quote.....
(2) how will "crazy" be defined for this purpose, how will that be determined and by whom. Who oversees and evaluates this determination? How long before an "applicant" gets his answer? Will there be "levels" of craziness (you can have a single shot .410 but we're going to have to deny that Glock you were hoping to get)? What protections or procedures will be in place to ensure an applicant can dispute or contest a ruling of incompetence or craziness? Would it be possible for a person who has been deemed too crazy to own a firearm to still be allowed to drive a car? etc., etc.
(3) who is responsible for a mental evaluation gone bad ...one way or the other. What will be the penalties for falsely or incompetently making that decision and what protections will be in place for any shooting victims or for an applicant who is unfairly deemed crazy and denied his 2nd Amendment rights?......
(5) other stuff.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16588357-anger-violent-thoughts-are-you-too-sick-to-own-a-gun?lite
excerpts:
But under a new law in New York, one of the strongest to be passed to date, therapists may feel compelled to report every instance of violent talk, lest they face legal consequences if something happens. And some say ordinary patients may wind up suffering the most.
“There’s one group of people who are gun owners who may reasonably or unreasonably think, ‘I’m not going anywhere near a mental health person, because if they misinterpret something I say as an indication I’m going to hurt myself or someone else, they’re going to report me and take away my guns,’” Applebaum said.
“Now if you’re mistaken, you’re wrong about this, and you don’t report it, you could face criminal sanctions. I’m not taking any chances at that point,” Dubovsky said. That could encourage therapists to over-report, he said.
toolbox 0
Why is it that you have to label someone as a worshiper of Reagan because they are against new gun control legislation?
I am neither right wing conservative nor left wing liberal,but in the middle,as I'm sure many others are as well.
I think hard line republicans, and hardline democrats are assholes who bicker back and forth,and get very little done in the best interest of the majority of the people.
We have shit piles of laws pertaining to victimless crime(drug use,suicide,ect),shit piles of laws against crimes upon others and their property(rape,murder,theft,environmental destruction,ect) and these laws do very little to stop anything,but are toted as great accomplishments by their sponsors, and used as political feathers in the hat to further their own political agendas which seem to be less about helping the middle class and more about helping themselves(the elite).
It seems to me that little has changed in the last 100 years.
The only sure way to avoid a canopy collision is to skydive by yourself.
I am neither right wing conservative nor left wing liberal,but in the middle,as I'm sure many others are as well.
I think hard line republicans, and hardline democrats are assholes who bicker back and forth,and get very little done in the best interest of the majority of the people.
We have shit piles of laws pertaining to victimless crime(drug use,suicide,ect),shit piles of laws against crimes upon others and their property(rape,murder,theft,environmental destruction,ect) and these laws do very little to stop anything,but are toted as great accomplishments by their sponsors, and used as political feathers in the hat to further their own political agendas which seem to be less about helping the middle class and more about helping themselves(the elite).
It seems to me that little has changed in the last 100 years.
The only sure way to avoid a canopy collision is to skydive by yourself.
skypuppy 1
QuoteQuote........ the words of Lincoln;
"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the U.S. are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
Yes, this! But remember that Lincoln, himself, perverted the Constitution ...maybe.
I believe Lincoln was responsible for more dead americans than anyone else ever, president or not. And he did it all with his eyes open, having been warned what would happen if he attempted to take the rights of self-determination away from the individual state.
Not to mention the untold economic mess he left in the south for decades after the war.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
quade 3
QuoteI believe Lincoln was responsible for more dead americans than anyone else ever, president or not. And he did it all with his eyes open, having been warned what would happen if he attempted to take the rights of self-determination away from the individual state.
Not to mention the untold economic mess he left in the south for decades after the war.
My god! That almost makes perfect sense.
Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people.
Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES?
Fuck the those people.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
muff528 3
I was only referring to the habeas corpus thing.
davjohns 1
QuoteIf the 2nd amendment was written with one of it's ideas being that a country could revolt against an undesirable government, doing this at a time when muskets put the average man on equal footing with professional soldiers. Now fast forward 200+ years, the average weapons owned by the private citizen, including semi auto assault weapons, are totally inadequate to fend off a modern army.
As weapons and ammo become more advanced, shouldn't the average citizen be able to arm him self with the latest in light weapons; fully auto guns, grenades, mortars, rockets and so forth to be able to put up a fight with a well equipped army?
And how do you define "A well regulated militia"?
1. Given they had just fought a hard war against the government for eight years, I think it is clear what you state is EXACTLY what was intended...in perpetuity...and ratified by the states.
2. At the time: every male over 16 seems to have been about right. Today, everyone over 18 might be more appropriate.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
GeorgiaDon 340
Hey davjohns, should the people who are trying to shut down Mile Hi Skydiving (discussed in this thread; also this is their facebook page) be allowed to arm themselves with stinger missiles if they want? What are the odds that people who are irrationally angry about noisy planes would use the missiles to solve their "problem", compared to the odds they would use them to defend against the government? Should DZs have to install anti-missile devices on all their jump planes? What would that do to the price of jump tickets?
The idea that everybody should have access to the same weapons as the military is just nuts, IMHO. Personally, I trust our military to refuse to go along with any attempt by the White House or Congress to order the blanket confiscation of guns, or universal implantation of mind-control microchips, or whatever other paranoid fantasies the tin foil hat brigade might conjure up.
Don
The idea that everybody should have access to the same weapons as the military is just nuts, IMHO. Personally, I trust our military to refuse to go along with any attempt by the White House or Congress to order the blanket confiscation of guns, or universal implantation of mind-control microchips, or whatever other paranoid fantasies the tin foil hat brigade might conjure up.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
davjohns 1
QuoteHey davjohns, should the people who are trying to shut down Mile Hi Skydiving be allowed to arm themselves with stinger missiles if they want?
Sure
What are the odds that people who are irrationally angry about noisy planes would use the missiles to solve their "problem", compared to the odds they would use them to defend against the government?
Pretty sure the odds of either are pretty low
Should DZs have to install anti-missile devices on all their jump planes? What would that do to the price of jump tickets?
No / guessing it would make skydiving unprofitable
The idea that everybody should have access to the same weapons as the military is just nuts, IMHO.
Okie doke
Personally, I trust our military to refuse to go along with any attempt by the White House or Congress to order the blanket confiscation of guns, or universal implantation of mind-control microchips, or whatever other paranoid fantasies the tin foil hat brigade might conjure up.
After 28 years of service (and counting), I tend to agree with you and hope we are correct. But hope is not a plan. And the weight of human history is against us.
Don
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
skypuppy 1
QuoteQuoteI believe Lincoln was responsible for more dead americans than anyone else ever, president or not. And he did it all with his eyes open, having been warned what would happen if he attempted to take the rights of self-determination away from the individual state.
Not to mention the untold economic mess he left in the south for decades after the war.
My god! That almost makes perfect sense.
Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people.
Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES?
Fuck the those people.
slavery was already on the way out. Had been made illegal in many jurisdictions and becoming more rare. Estimates I read would have put slavery as dying out within 20-25 years even without the war between the states.
Any scholar will tell you the civil war was not about slavery. It was about State rights. And Lincoln was well aware of what would happen long before he passed the legislation that led to the Confederate States.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteI believe Lincoln was responsible for more dead americans than anyone else ever, president or not. And he did it all with his eyes open, having been warned what would happen if he attempted to take the rights of self-determination away from the individual state.
Not to mention the untold economic mess he left in the south for decades after the war.
My god! That almost makes perfect sense.
Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people.
Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES?
Fuck the those people.
The Civil war had little to do with slavery. It was about oppression of the southern states by big businesses of the north. To be more specific it was about tariffs that supported northern businesses and hurt the southern states who relied on exports.
davjohns 1
Politically, it was about state rights vs federalism. There is little doubt that Lincoln's motivation was federalism. Realistically, it was about money. The Southern states were buying products cheaper from their trade partners in Europe than what they could get them for from the North. The ships picking up cotton, also delivered cheap goods. The Northern states wanted to place tariffs on those goods to force the South to buy Northern goods. The South rebelled (no pun). After two years of loss, Northern determination for the war was flagging. Lincoln knew he could not keep public support under the banner of federalism. So, he staged an information operations campaign to re-brand the war as being about the moral issue of slavery. Abolitionists were happy to pretend it had been that way all along. So, armed with moral indignation, the North continued the war under a banner it had not begun under. And then the history books were written...
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
beowulf 1
Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery at all. His only interest was Federalism and keeping the states together at all costs. His plan for blacks was to send them all back to Africa.
davjohns 1
I have heard that, but never saw anything credible on the issue.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
Andy9o8 0
QuotePolitically, it was about state rights vs federalism. There is little doubt that Lincoln's motivation was federalism. Realistically, it was about money. The Southern states were buying products cheaper from their trade partners in Europe than what they could get them for from the North. The ships picking up cotton, also delivered cheap goods. The Northern states wanted to place tariffs on those goods to force the South to buy Northern goods. The South rebelled (no pun). After two years of loss, Northern determination for the war was flagging. Lincoln knew he could not keep public support under the banner of federalism. So, he staged an information operations campaign to re-brand the war as being about the moral issue of slavery. Abolitionists were happy to pretend it had been that way all along. So, armed with moral indignation, the North continued the war under a banner it had not begun under. And then the history books were written...
Interesting spin on the War of Southern Insurrection.
In the linked Wiki article on the Confederate States, please scroll down and take a look at the subsection "Causes of Secession". This historical analysis seems inconsistent with yours, so I'd be interested to know your thought about what it says (and quotes). (Basically, it advances the analysis that the South seceded mainly in response to the Lincoln's and the Republicans' overwhelming electoral victory in the North, with the issue of slavery being the primary bone of conflict, driving most of the other issues; but please read it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
beowulf 1
Thomas DiLorenzo has written some very interesting books on this subject. He does a good job of citing his sources. A lot of people don't realize that before Lincoln was president he was the highest paid lawyer in the US. He worked primarily for the big railroad companies.
beowulf 1
That is pretty much the propaganda version.
Who gives a shit?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites