Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Joe Sixpack, who keep in mind is not part of our well-regulated militia... or any well-regulated militia, for that matter.
It does not matter. One is not required to be a member of a militia to have the right to own a firearm. All that is needed for that right is the possibility of a militia, that is it.
 

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
DONOR
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
7,884
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso, GL1000
If its an issue of semantics, then I think the phrasing is pretty clear. The comma separating the people from the militia clearly means that the right for people to bear arms doesn't mean that they need to be in a militia.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
What I'm trying to clarify is that...

Should it be a right, as in you answer questions such as "DO YOU HEAR VOICES?" and "WILL YOU SHOOT ANYONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR FACE?" like you do now...

Or a privilege, as in you have to take some sort of aptitude test, like you do in order to drive... or in the case of the military, bear arms?

My argument in favor of privilege is that if the United States Military has to take an aptitude test in order to bear arms to defend our country, why is it that the average American schmuck can get one without such scrutiny?
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,996
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Let's go back to the American Revolution again. Let's say the British government decided to enact the same law in the colonies.

Question 1: Will you revolt against the state?

"Ah looks like you marked you will revolt. Sorry no gun for you."
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Let's put it another way:

What would be the problem in requiring everyone to take the equivalent of a CCW test when they want to own a firearm?
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Why? If you can't pass a test of the basic tenets and requirements for responsible gun ownership, why should you be allowed to own one? What good would you be to a well-regulated militia if you don't know how to responsibly handle and use a firearm?
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Let me put it this way. I am alright with some "wrong" people obtaining firearms if it leads to greater freedom. As I said on the first page, I am in favor of doing away with most current firearm laws and regulations.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Those "wrong" people who obtain firearms are precisely the people who are the thorn in your side in regards to easing government regulations. You might want to be in favor of weeding them out if you actually want to achieve your goal of "un-bureaucratic, sensible firearm regulation".

Unless you just want everyone and anyone to have whatever guns they want, in which case, you're ridiculous.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Let's put it another way:

What would be the problem in requiring everyone to take the equivalent of a CCW test when they want to own a firearm?
thats not the polls question

This thread is fairly simple. It is a poll to determine how people feel about the ownership of firearms. Should people have the choice to own a firearm? Should they be denied this choice?
Your question implies a yes to the choice with the caveat of hoops to jump though. Fine, but one must be cognisant that there is a point where the legal obtaining of a firearm becomes either too difficult or too expensive that people obtain them illegally. Furthermore restricting the possession of a firearm makes it less likely that people will comply with legally obtaining a firearm.

It is a fine line on how much regulation you can put into place before people ignore said regulation. Lets extrapolate this to First Amendment and the press. You still could have a newspaper and free press but anything that is to be printed must be submitted 48 hours in advance. We are not saying that we are taking the right away rather just adding a step of having government have fair warning.

What I am saying is that even though your are agreeing that there is a right to the choice of owning a gun your added regulation may have the unintended consequence of robbing the text of its intention.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
NRA backs Willows student expelled for carrying gun in truck
Karen Massie 2 days ago

WILLOWS, CA - A 17-year-old Willows student will have the National Rifle Association behind him when he appeals his expulsion from school for having a shotgun in his pick-up truck.

Like many youngsters his age, Gary Tudesko likes to hunt. "I hunt ducks, geese, all types of waterfowl," said Tudesko.

But last October, his recreational pursuits landed him in trouble at Willows High School.

"I went hunting before school, me and my friend, and I didn't want to be late so I parked off campus at my school," Tudesko said.

Tudesko was in class when he was called to the principal's office. He soon learned why.

"They brought in a private sniffing dog and it alerted on my truck and they found the guns," Tudesko said. The weapons belonged to Tudesko and his friend.

Claiming he was a danger to himself and other students, Tudesko was suspended and eventually handed a year-long expulsion.

His mother, Susan Parisio, said, "What happened to him wasn't right," Tudesko's mother Susan Parisio said.

Parisio said it's an important distinction that her son's truck was parked on a public street. "I asked the police and the district attorney's office if he did anything wrong and they said no," Parisio said.

However, school officials disagreed. They told Parisio state law gives them "the right to search any of the student's vehicles no matter where they're parked or what they're doing during school hours," she said.

The NRA came to Tudesko's aid, saying school officials are misinterpreting the law. An NRA lawyer plans to be by Tudesko's side when he appeals his expulsion Tuesday at the Glenn County Office of Education at 10 a.m.

Tudesko said he's eager to return to Willows High and graduate on time with his class.

"I'm thinking about going into to some type of law enforcement," Tudesko said.

Video: http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?bctid=61799506001
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=73348&provider=top
Considering the school is cash-strapped one does have to wonder where they got the funds for dogs and expensive legal litigation.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,857
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
I think my position on firearm ownership is pretty clear.
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
Let me put it this way. I am alright with some "wrong" people obtaining firearms if it leads to greater freedom. As I said on the first page, I am in favor of doing away with most current firearm laws and regulations.
Yes...in the letter of the law, which is what I'm ok with. Especially if everybody is happy and cheery and enjoys shooting sports, and if they didn't hold such callous views of humanity or have voices in their heads telling them to kill all the children, or resent their classmates to the extent that they're willing to terminate their lives by any means necessary.

Which goes against the tenets of responsible gun ownership, the kind that can only be determined by some sort of test or licensing procedure. Which is what we have now. Naturally, this means that some people won't be allowed to own firearms, even though in the eyes of the law they can if they want to.

And you're arguing against weeding out the psychopaths and people who don't know a thing about how to control a firearm? I honestly cannot believe we are arguing this. These "wrong" people are the sort that shoot up malls and schools, and then responsible gun owners get blamed for it. And then people get antsy about gun control, which curtails freedom, which...I shouldn't have to spell out the rest for you, right?

You're ok with licensing people how to use an automobile, right? How is that any different than licensing people how to fire an AR-15 5.56mm lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, shoulder-fired weapon? People have a choice, but the more practical matter of whether they're responsible or not is the "evil regulation" and "goverment control" you decry so fervently. If you were blind, would you be allowed to drive a car? And if you made a hit list of the people at school you wanted to shoot in the middle of their faces, would you be allowed to own a gun? Judging by what you're saying, you'd be ok with that, because "it leads to greater freedom!"

No, it doesn't, because it does the exact opposite. Because every time after a tragedy like Columbine or Hungerford, the supporters of gun control become larger and more vocal. Look at England and Australia: it only took one incident of the "wrong" person to be granted a firearm for their respective nations to ban them outright.

So by weeding out those who aren't responsible enough, it reduces the backlash available to those who would view you, gun owners and the NRA as Hitler-worshipping baby killers. Make sense?

Then again, I thought it was common sense not to give a brooding psychopath a weapon that can kill people with. Of course, when arguing with conservatives these days, it seems you can't rely on common sense. ;)

Love,
- a "dirty liberal" who loves guns.

 
Last edited:

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Yes...in the letter of the law, which is what I'm ok with. Especially if everybody is happy and cheery and enjoys shooting sports, and if they didn't hold such callous views of humanity or have voices in their heads telling them to kill all the children, or resent their classmates to the extent that they're willing to terminate their lives by any means necessary.
So your not policing guns, your policing thoughts. Even more difficult and despicable, what you would have is people less willing to seek help from qualified mental health professionals out of fear they would lose the right to operate any dangerous instrument (like a car).

And you're arguing against weeding out the psychopaths and people who don't know a thing about how to control a firearm? I honestly cannot believe we are arguing this. These "wrong" people are the sort that shoot up malls and schools, and then responsible gun owners get blamed for it. And then people get antsy about gun control, which curtails freedom, which...I shouldn't have to spell out the rest for you, right?
after a tragedy like Columbine or Hungerford, the supporters of gun control become larger and more vocal. Look at England and Australia: it only took one incident of the "wrong" person to be granted a firearm for their respective nations to ban them outright.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold obtained their guns illegally and Michael Ryan exhibited no mental deficiencies. Claiming that you want to weed out psychopaths is nice but reality and practicality its far more difficult.

You're ok with licensing people how to use an automobile, right? And if you made a hit list of the people at school you wanted to shoot in the middle of their faces, would you be allowed to own a gun? Judging by what you're saying, you'd be ok with that, because "it leads to greater freedom!"
So your solution is to take away the freedom of speech. Just because a person makes such a list does not mean that they will act on it. Rather your further criminalizing freedoms and attaching penalties of removing freedoms for exercising your rights. The first argument has nothing to do with the other. An automobile is a dangerous instrument; yet we are not asked about our mental history. For that matter whether we eat a diet high in cholesterol which could lead to a heart attack and we could lose control of our vehicle.


So by weeding out those who aren't responsible enough, it reduces the backlash available to those who would view you, gun owners and the NRA as Hitler-worshipping baby killers. Make sense?

Then again, I thought it was common sense not to give a brooding psychopath a weapon that can kill people with. Of course, when arguing with conservatives these days, it seems you can't rely on common sense. ;)
As Goldwater stated "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Considering the school is cash-strapped one does have to wonder where they got the funds for dogs and expensive legal litigation.
There was a huge court case around here not too long ago about a school's right to search a student's car when it isn't on school grounds, or discipline students for activities that don't happen on school ground and/or aren't during school hours. You can imagine how it went.

If he was parked on school property with a shotgun, then absolutely, he should have been punished for it. Every school I've ever seen has very clear "NO FIREARMS" signs, and the grown-ups law is quite clear on having firearms in places like schools and courts.

... but he wasn't. It's like the school is interpreting their "jurisdiction" as "the student", rather than "the school grounds".
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
thats not the polls question

Your question implies a yes to the choice with the caveat of hoops to jump though. Fine, but one must be cognisant that there is a point where the legal obtaining of a firearm becomes either too difficult or too expensive that people obtain them illegally. Furthermore restricting the possession of a firearm makes it less likely that people will comply with legally obtaining a firearm.
Well obviously, I'm asking people to think outside the boxpoll.

Really? The "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns" defense? It's a huge stretch to apply that to a case arguing for what equates to mandatory, quality education and training (i.e. requiring the equivalent of a CCW exam for all firearms). Outlaws already own guns; that's not the point. The point is to take the general population of gun owners, and make sure that they're responsible in their right to bear arms.

What I am saying is that even though your are agreeing that there is a right to the choice of owning a gun your added regulation may have the unintended consequence of robbing the text of its intention.
On the contrary, I'm interpreting the context of the amendment the same way many people interpret it. What good is an irresponsible, untrained gun owner to a well-regulated militia?

I think my position on firearm ownership is pretty clear.
What's your position on what I'm talking about?
 
Last edited:

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,145
Do I think people should have the right to be armed (with restrictions like background checks, restrictions on the sort of weapon and mandatory tests on gunhandling - wich pretty much is the german system) ? Yes.
But I would strongly oppose a general right to bare firearms for everybody. Restrictions are very needed.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Really? The "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns" defense? It's a huge stretch to apply that to a case arguing for what equates to mandatory, quality education and training (i.e. requiring the equivalent of a CCW exam for all firearms). Outlaws already own guns; that's not the point. The point is to take the general population of gun owners, and make sure that they're responsible in their right to bear arms.
Not really. What I am saying is that by placing more restrictions on gun ownership you might have people (who would not have before) obtain a gun illegally. I am talking about law abiding citizens (not criminals) who would make the choice to obtain guns illegally after these laws are in place.

On the contrary, I'm interpreting the context of the amendment the same way many people interpret it. What good is an irresponsible, untrained gun owner to a well-regulated militia?

Right there would be very little good for a well-regulated militia to take the irresponsible. (untrained arguable) However a militia does not have to take everyone that is obligated to it. The second amendment gives the right for both gun ownership and a well regulated militia.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
I'm curious. Are all murderers, or people who're willing to commit crimes with the aid of a firearm, mentally unstable? Would more licensing and instruction really weed any potential killers out? Is it something that a generic test could identify? Because it seems to me that most crime is the result the poverty or possibly greed. Insisting on more licenses and instruction would probably just make the killers more proficient with their weapons. I doubt you'll weed out any killers or reduce deaths. Felons and the mentally unstable are already banned from owning weapons.
 
Top