Poll

Is gun control an effective means of reducing violent crime

Yes.  People cannot be trusted with guns for any reason.  If the population is not armed, then there are less guns in the hands of criminals.  As a result there will be less violent crime
Yes.  But only for gun crimes, it will have no effect on other types of violent crimes
Yes and no.  It may reduce crimes commited with guns, but criminal will then resort to other weapons such as knives.  Other violent crimes will increase
No.  Criminals will get guns despite the law, it will have no effect on crime
No.  Not only will criminals ignore this law and get guns illegally, but such laws will make for easier victims since they will not be armed.  Crime rates will increase
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 67   Go Down

Gun Control

  • 1998 Replies
  • 470125 Views
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #240 on: January 08, 2009, 07:32:35 AM »
Sorry about the long posts, but I think this excerpt is important to the conversation as well, in addition, this guy has put forth an argument better than I could ever hope to.

Bursor, Scott, Toward a Functional Framework for Interpreting the Second Amendment.

Quote
Is the view of an armed populace embodied in the Second Amendment still valid in a society with professional military and police forces? Is an armed populace still capable of performing the functions detailed above? Many have argued that it cannot and thus, that the private ownership of arms is an anachronism inapplicable to our current circumstances. These arguments rest on empirical assertions that are highly debatable to say the least.

Commentators often attack the vitality of the military and political functions of the militia concept with the argument that they can no longer be performed by a militia. Simply stated, the argument is that an armed citizenry cannot restrain a domestic tyrant or deter a foreign conqueror backed by a modern army. This empirical assertion is frequently made by lawyers, politicians, or other advocates who offer neither argument nor authority for the proposition. And while this assertion may be true in some limited number of circumstances, as a categorical assertion it is demonstrably false.

Consider some recent examples. The Vietnam War demonstrated that a modern military power can be resisted by guerilla fighters bearing only small arms. This lesson has not been forgotten. In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly." The deterrent effect of an armed populace was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United Nations peace keeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and sanitary."

The validity of these concerns has also been demonstrated in the current conflict in Chechnya where "[m]ore than 40,000 soldiers from the Russian army ... have quickly been humbled by a few thousand urban guerrillas who mostly live at home, wear jeans, use castoff weapons and have almost no coherent battle plans or organization." The Russian army's nuclear capability apparently has not translated into a tactical advantage in the streets of Chechnya.

In addition to these anecdotal examples, there is further evidence of the military practicality of an armed citizenry. The 1966 Arthur D. Little, Inc. Report ("the Little Report"), commissioned by the United States Department of the Army, concluded that in spite of recent technological developments in the modes of waging war, a modern war will almost certainly be a "shooting war" in which the basic individual weapon of combat will be the rifle. The Little Report does more than refute the notion that riflemen are militarily obsolete in the nuclear era. It offers an additional insight into the military value of armed citizens: they make better soldiers when they enter the service. They are significantly better marksmen than those who did not own arms prior to enlistment (even when marksmanship is measured after military training) and are more confident in their ability to perform effectively in combat. Furthermore, gun owners are more likely to enlist, to prefer combat outfits, and to become marksmanship instructors.

...

Nevertheless, the question of whether armed citizens can serve as an effective check on the state in our nuclear age is an important one. The belief that an armed citizenry would subdue aggressive rulers and keep them sensitive to the rights of the people was perhaps the most important motivation for the inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. Thus, the continued vitality of an armed populace as a check on the modern state should have important implications on our interpretation of the Second Amendment. As I have noted above, there is little reason to dismiss the effectiveness of a modern militia. Much to the contrary, the Little Report and the conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, and Chechnya offer compelling evidence that armed citizens can restrain, deter, or repel a modern army.

Some, while acknowledging the effectiveness of an armed citizenry as a check on government, have questioned the prudence of such a scheme. Certainly, we ought not encourage or facilitate armed uprisings whenever a particular group feels shorted by the political process. Moreover, it is entirely legitimate for the government to punish insurrection. Can such punishment be consistent with a proper respect for the political function of the right to arms?

Of course it can. The Second Amendment does not guarantee immunity from punishment for insurrection; it merely guarantees the capacity for resistance. And that capacity, as a check on government, does not go unchecked itself. The Constitution explicitly affirms the validity of punishing insurrection, and the potential of punishment is a check on the armed populace. It strongly discourages armed resistance except in the cases of the most severe encroachments by the government. This idea is best expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed [or challenged] 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."
Logged
?

Rex

  • 2012
  • +0/-0
  • Oink!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #241 on: January 08, 2009, 08:41:20 AM »
Quote from: Benocrates on January 07, 2009, 07:18:44 PM
   Concerning the 2nd amendment. It seems clear to me that there are two primary and non-overlapping arguments that have dominated the pro-handgun discourse. The first being defence against other citizens, of which I think we have agreed involves a heavily society-based analysis. The second, only tangentially addressed, concerns defense against a tyranical government.

   Considering the second argument, it seems that there is a seriouly deluded and self-inflating element that stands as a giant pink elephent. It appears that the 2nd amendment is in place in order to prevent against another monarchical or tyrannically imposed rule taking over and allowing for another revolution. On its face this appears as a reasonable argument, however I believe it is almost patently unreasonable and deluded.

   Primarily, it is clear to me the blatant misuse of this amendment to justify our first criterion of acceptableness (personal defense v. group safety). Not being an American constitutional scholar, I do believe that my interpretation of its spirit (to prevent tyranny) is correct. If so, it is obviously untenable in a discourse concerning the first criteria.

   Secondly, accepting my reading of the amendment, we would have to speculate on how the population could successfully rebel against the government. With only a limited knowledge of historical revolution, it would seem that in our current era, a revolution would have to be carried out in an organized manner (i.e. militias, as the amendment states).

   Accepting the necessity for militias, we must analysis what kind of weaponry they would require to overthrow a well or even moderatly armed America. Now, it is of corse possible that in the event of such a coup, the US (or whichever) government powers could be significantly limited, however such a contingency is of such little likelyhood it would clearly be the exception, not the rule.

   Accepting a well armed government, it is clear that the weaponry required would have to be substantial enough to bring down heavy military hardware and directly oppose heavily armed troops. At this point we could consider lightly armed resistance groups (e.g. Taliban) and how they are able to succeed with arguably light armament. I believe the divergence with this type of resistance is the goals and successes of the rebellion. I don't know for sure, but I don't know of any "grass-roots" type (IEDs, light arms, etc) resistance force that has been sucessfull in performing a coup on a significantly armed state.

   Returning to the hypothetical American resistance, while accepting a significant tyrrany and lightly armed resistance, we must analyse the capabilities of such a resistance to effectively succeed in a coup. As far as I understand, the majority of states that allow weaponry in the populous don't allow heavy military weaponry. This would suggest that the populous, while being armed, would only be relativly insignificant compared to the might of a state.

    Of course, we can all imagine scenarios in which large enough spears could overthrow a government, however I think the scenario would have to be realistic enough to make an argument.

You seem to overlook the fact that insurgencies are waged assymmetrically and often in urban settings, where tanks are easily ambushed by way of a couple RPGs or IEDs. In CQB a .45 Thompson will get the job done, just like it did in Berlin almost 64 years ago. The 9mm MP5 would be the more stable option these days. These are both pistol cartridges which serve their purpose and will continue to do so for quite some time. Your argument that smallarms should be banned because they are inefficient is typical philosopher bullshit. Have you ever seen the impact of a .45 slug?
Logged
Quote from: Jack
I'm special.
Quote from: Wardogg
Marry me.
Quote from: Althalus
I'm Althalus and I approve this message.
?

Rex

  • 2012
  • +0/-0
  • Oink!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #242 on: January 08, 2009, 10:16:35 AM »
Quote from: Jesus Crotch on December 31, 2008, 11:53:40 AM
Had a permit holder been at Virginia Tech or Colombine at the right time, we very well could have three dead psychos and two fewer national tragedies.

Logged
Quote from: Jack
I'm special.
Quote from: Wardogg
Marry me.
Quote from: Althalus
I'm Althalus and I approve this message.
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #243 on: January 08, 2009, 12:55:31 PM »
Quote from: Benocrates on January 07, 2009, 08:46:41 PM
If we consider the second amendment argument solely, would you then agree that the allowed weaponry should be expanded to keep up with the state's weaponry?

No, see my post above regarding rebellions and such.  I agree with part of the Supreme courts ruling several months ago.  They found that the weapons that are protected by the second amendment include those commonly used by the people for lawful purposes such as sport and self defense.

Although this ruling is kind of vague, and it is not completely pro gun, I think it is a good compromise for both sides.  Under this ruling, a handguns, which is the most commonly used weapon for self defense by the people, is constitutionally protected and cannot be banned.  However a full auto assault rifle is not commonly used for these purposes (opinions may vary), therefore these weapons would not be protected under the second amendment and a state or district is within its rights to ban it.

One problem with this ruling is, if the population is never allowed access to a particular weapon in the first place (lets say a new type of firearm is invented), then it never could become commonly used and therefore could be banned from the start.  I think a better choice of words would have been the arms that are preferred by the people for lawful purposes such as sport and self defense.  That way public opinion itself could enable a certain type of firearm to be protected by the second amendment.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #244 on: January 08, 2009, 04:03:20 PM »
But the point is that it's so the population could overthrow a corrupt government, and you can't beat the biggest military in the world with handguns, the Vietnamese were just a fluke. Hence handguns should not be protected by the Second Amendment.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2009, 04:05:52 PM »
The point is you cannot take control/enslave/opress a people against their will if the whole population is armed, and there are several more examples in the works I provides in addition to Vietnam that support this point.
Logged
*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #246 on: January 08, 2009, 04:15:26 PM »
Quote from: ragnarr on January 08, 2009, 04:05:52 PM
The point is you cannot take control/enslave/opress a people against their will if the whole population is armed, and there are several more examples in the works I provides in addition to Vietnam that support this point.

I'm glad you've responded with some historical examples. I haven't read em yet, but I will and give my response.
Logged
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Quote from: Parsifal on July 26, 2010, 04:39:24 PM
Get the fuck over it.
?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #247 on: January 08, 2009, 04:19:56 PM »
Perhaps a bit off topic, but since we've zeroed in on the validity of the Second Amendment this Atlantic Monthly piece might be of relevance (Second Amendment is discussed towards the end of the article)

An Atlantic Monthly reading
Cinlef

Logged
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 03:54:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom
?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #248 on: January 08, 2009, 04:24:33 PM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on January 08, 2009, 04:03:20 PM
But the point is that it's so the population could overthrow a corrupt government, and you can't beat the biggest military in the world with handguns, the Vietnamese were just a fluke. Hence handguns should not be protected by the Second Amendment.

It depends on the type of battles being waged.  If you remain underground, or in areas where visible fighting is limited to 10 meters or less, Handguns are more effective.

You could make this same arguments about every weapons.  What it boils down to is not what weapons they have, but how hard they are willing to fight.  The Russian Afghan conflict, Vietnam for the USA, a half dozen other conflicts were won not by superior or even equal weapons, but because the people said they wouldn't quit, ever.

A civil war in America is nearly impossible at this point, but the defense of self, freedom and liberty from any force, internal or external is still our right.  That handgun may not be effective against a tank, but it works just fine versus a mugger.  The AR series of weapons may not be the best hunting weapons, but they can be used against military aggressors, foreign or domestic.  A shotgun has a dozen purposes, from home defense to hunting to military applications.

Regardless of their purpose, trying to say that any one type of firearm is no longer needed is against the meaning and purpose of the second Amendment.
Logged
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #249 on: January 09, 2009, 07:56:33 AM »
Quote from: Cinlef on January 08, 2009, 04:19:56 PM
Perhaps a bit off topic, but since we've zeroed in on the validity of the Second Amendment this Atlantic Monthly piece might be of relevance (Second Amendment is discussed towards the end of the article)

An Atlantic Monthly reading
Cinlef

That pretty much outlines the opposing views of the Second.  Though I will add as a pro gun ownership supporter myself, I do not discount the first clause of the amendment "A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state".  This is what is commonly called a purpose clause, what comes next, is the method to ensure that purpose:  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  Gun opponents argue that the first clause is a restriction, not a purpose.  This does not hold true in English, though in the world of law, language be damned.  That is the problem.

The second amendment protects an individual right for a collective purpose.  The right is not that of the states, it is that of the people as is clearly stated in the second clause.  The first clause outlines a purpose which belongs to the states, who have a purpose of forming a well regulated militia.  Here is another was of thinking of it: the right that is protected in the second clause ensures that the purpose outlined in the first will succeed.

This position of an individual right is supported by the founding fathers through several speeches after the 2nd amendment's ratification.

Quote from: Benocrates on January 08, 2009, 04:15:26 PM
I'm glad you've responded with some historical examples. I haven't read em yet, but I will and give my response.

I look forward to it.  So far this thread has been very enjoyable.  :)


Logged
?

Jesus Crotch

  • 1250
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #250 on: January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM »
Quote from: ragnarr on January 09, 2009, 07:56:33 AM
Quote from: Cinlef on January 08, 2009, 04:19:56 PM
Perhaps a bit off topic, but since we've zeroed in on the validity of the Second Amendment this Atlantic Monthly piece might be of relevance (Second Amendment is discussed towards the end of the article)

An Atlantic Monthly reading
Cinlef

That pretty much outlines the opposing views of the Second.  Though I will add as a pro gun ownership supporter myself, I do not discount the first clause of the amendment "A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state".  This is what is commonly called a purpose clause, what comes next, is the method to ensure that purpose:  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  Gun opponents argue that the first clause is a restriction, not a purpose.  This does not hold true in English, though in the world of law, language be damned.  That is the problem.

The second amendment protects an individual right for a collective purpose.  The right is not that of the states, it is that of the people as is clearly stated in the second clause.  The first clause outlines a purpose which belongs to the states, who have a purpose of forming a well regulated militia.  Here is another was of thinking of it: the right that is protected in the second clause ensures that the purpose outlined in the first will succeed.

This position of an individual right is supported by the founding fathers through several speeches after the 2nd amendment's ratification.

Quote from: Benocrates on January 08, 2009, 04:15:26 PM
I'm glad you've responded with some historical examples. I haven't read em yet, but I will and give my response.

I look forward to it.  So far this thread has been very enjoyable.  :)





Actually, this has been looked over and ruled on years ago by the US Supreme Court.  I've lost my link, but they issued a report wherein they detailed - in no uncertain terms, that 'the people', as written in the 2nd, means the same thing it does in the 1st, 4th, and others:  THE PEOPLE.  The context of the Bill of Rights leaves no question on this, legally or linguistically.  The 2nd gives the other amendments their teeth, and is an important part of a complex web.

The standing army now maintained by the US is strictly unconstitutional and does detract from the potential effectiveness of the 2nd.  The military has possession of weaponry far more advanced and deadly than the citizenry, and that is antithetical to the intent of the framers in writing the 2nd.  This is why the transition to a citizen army is imperative.  A cross between the systems employed by Switzerland and Israel should be just about perfect.  When every non felonious, qualified citizen has an M4 and ammo in his house, and the troops are under the command of the government instead of under the control of the government, the 2nd will have its teeth back, and the politicians will be afraid again, as they should be.

Washington is quoted as describing his transition from the Presidency back to Citizenry a promotion.  It's time politicians realized that that's what it was.  Some public executions should do it.

Oh, and the GCA of 1968 needs to be repealed.  Full-auto is fun.
Logged
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #251 on: January 09, 2009, 12:33:45 PM »
Quote from: Jesus Crotch on January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
Actually, this has been looked over and ruled on years ago by the US Supreme Court.  I've lost my link, but they issued a report wherein they detailed - in no uncertain terms, that 'the people', as written in the 2nd, means the same thing it does in the 1st, 4th, and others:  THE PEOPLE.  The context of the Bill of Rights leaves no question on this, legally or linguistically.  The 2nd gives the other amendments their teeth, and is an important part of a complex web.

Correct, there is no reason to believe that "the people" as used in all other parts of the constitution including the preamble "We the People" refers to the citizenry but "the people" as stated in the second amendment refers to the state.  The supreme court did correctly make that ruling.

Quote from: Jesus Crotch on January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
The standing army now maintained by the US is strictly unconstitutional and does detract from the potential effectiveness of the 2nd.  The military has possession of weaponry far more advanced and deadly than the citizenry, and that is antithetical to the intent of the framers in writing the 2nd.  This is why the transition to a citizen army is imperative.  A cross between the systems employed by Switzerland and Israel should be just about perfect.  When every non felonious, qualified citizen has an M4 and ammo in his house, and the troops are under the command of the government instead of under the control of the government, the 2nd will have its teeth back, and the politicians will be afraid again, as they should be.

I've been told that it is unconstitutional for the military to operate within the states, however I cannot find that part in the constitution.  What part of our constitution is our military in violation of?

Also, if you read my other posts above, you will see that the civilians do not need to be as effective as a modern army.  The point of having the citizenry armed is not so we can ban together and overthrow the government, rather it is a check and balance against attempted usurpation of power, and domestic insurrections.  Which as you will read, does not require the citizenry to be as powerful as the standing army.

I agree with the supreme courts decision in part, I believe the second amendment should protect those arms that are preferred by the citizens for lawful purposes, the court used the words commonly used instead of preferred. 
Logged
?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #252 on: January 09, 2009, 12:50:09 PM »
Quote from: ragnarr on January 09, 2009, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Jesus Crotch on January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
Actually, this has been looked over and ruled on years ago by the US Supreme Court.  I've lost my link, but they issued a report wherein they detailed - in no uncertain terms, that 'the people', as written in the 2nd, means the same thing it does in the 1st, 4th, and others:  THE PEOPLE.  The context of the Bill of Rights leaves no question on this, legally or linguistically.  The 2nd gives the other amendments their teeth, and is an important part of a complex web.
I may be mistaken but I belive that the standing army cannot be deployed in the states on a normal basis because it is not in the constitution and therefore it would violate the rights of the states to manage their own afairs or something like that

Correct, there is no reason to believe that "the people" as used in all other parts of the constitution including the preamble "We the People" refers to the citizenry but "the people" as stated in the second amendment refers to the state.  The supreme court did correctly make that ruling.

Quote from: Jesus Crotch on January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
The standing army now maintained by the US is strictly unconstitutional and does detract from the potential effectiveness of the 2nd.  The military has possession of weaponry far more advanced and deadly than the citizenry, and that is antithetical to the intent of the framers in writing the 2nd.  This is why the transition to a citizen army is imperative.  A cross between the systems employed by Switzerland and Israel should be just about perfect.  When every non felonious, qualified citizen has an M4 and ammo in his house, and the troops are under the command of the government instead of under the control of the government, the 2nd will have its teeth back, and the politicians will be afraid again, as they should be.

I've been told that it is unconstitutional for the military to operate within the states, however I cannot find that part in the constitution.  What part of our constitution is our military in violation of?

Also, if you read my other posts above, you will see that the civilians do not need to be as effective as a modern army.  The point of having the citizenry armed is not so we can ban together and overthrow the government, rather it is a check and balance against attempted usurpation of power, and domestic insurrections.  Which as you will read, does not require the citizenry to be as powerful as the standing army.

I agree with the supreme courts decision in part, I believe the second amendment should protect those arms that are preferred by the citizens for lawful purposes, the court used the words commonly used instead of preferred. 
Logged
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.
?

Anteater7171

  • 9408
  • +0/-0
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #253 on: January 09, 2009, 12:57:43 PM »
It was the Posse Comitatus act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Logged
Quote from: Muphci on August 14, 2010, 05:30:41 PM
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.
?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #254 on: January 09, 2009, 12:59:29 PM »
Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 09, 2009, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: ragnarr on January 09, 2009, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Jesus Crotch on January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
Actually, this has been looked over and ruled on years ago by the US Supreme Court.  I've lost my link, but they issued a report wherein they detailed - in no uncertain terms, that 'the people', as written in the 2nd, means the same thing it does in the 1st, 4th, and others:  THE PEOPLE.  The context of the Bill of Rights leaves no question on this, legally or linguistically.  The 2nd gives the other amendments their teeth, and is an important part of a complex web.
I may be mistaken but I belive that the standing army cannot be deployed in the states on a normal basis because it is not in the constitution and therefore it would violate the rights of the states to manage their own afairs or something like that

Correct, there is no reason to believe that "the people" as used in all other parts of the constitution including the preamble "We the People" refers to the citizenry but "the people" as stated in the second amendment refers to the state.  The supreme court did correctly make that ruling.

Quote from: Jesus Crotch on January 09, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
The standing army now maintained by the US is strictly unconstitutional and does detract from the potential effectiveness of the 2nd.  The military has possession of weaponry far more advanced and deadly than the citizenry, and that is antithetical to the intent of the framers in writing the 2nd.  This is why the transition to a citizen army is imperative.  A cross between the systems employed by Switzerland and Israel should be just about perfect.  When every non felonious, qualified citizen has an M4 and ammo in his house, and the troops are under the command of the government instead of under the control of the government, the 2nd will have its teeth back, and the politicians will be afraid again, as they should be.

I've been told that it is unconstitutional for the military to operate within the states, however I cannot find that part in the constitution.  What part of our constitution is our military in violation of?

Also, if you read my other posts above, you will see that the civilians do not need to be as effective as a modern army.  The point of having the citizenry armed is not so we can ban together and overthrow the government, rather it is a check and balance against attempted usurpation of power, and domestic insurrections.  Which as you will read, does not require the citizenry to be as powerful as the standing army.

I agree with the supreme courts decision in part, I believe the second amendment should protect those arms that are preferred by the citizens for lawful purposes, the court used the words commonly used instead of preferred. 

The rule that prevents the use of the MIlitary in the US is not a Constitutional thing.  it's a bit later, after the Civil War.

"    
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States Federal Law (18 U.S.C. ? 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Note that if the Constitution allows it, or Congress oks it, they can be used, but the President cannot use them for military action inside the USA.
Logged
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #255 on: January 09, 2009, 01:12:59 PM »
Quote from: Ravenwood240 on January 09, 2009, 12:59:29 PM
The rule that prevents the use of the MIlitary in the US is not a Constitutional thing.  it's a bit later, after the Civil War.

"    
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States Federal Law (18 U.S.C. ? 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Note that if the Constitution allows it, or Congress oks it, they can be used, but the President cannot use them for military action inside the USA.

Yes I believe it is allowed in the constitution in cases of rebellion, thanks.  Is our military currently violating this?  I know the FBI, and Homeland security are.
Logged
?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #256 on: January 09, 2009, 01:19:44 PM »
Quote from: ragnarr on January 09, 2009, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Ravenwood240 on January 09, 2009, 12:59:29 PM
The rule that prevents the use of the MIlitary in the US is not a Constitutional thing.  it's a bit later, after the Civil War.

"    
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States Federal Law (18 U.S.C. ? 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Note that if the Constitution allows it, or Congress oks it, they can be used, but the President cannot use them for military action inside the USA.

Yes I believe it is allowed in the constitution in cases of rebellion, thanks.  Is our military currently violating this?  I know the FBI, and Homeland security are.

The FBI is not a military unit and are not covered by this act.  They are a federal police unit, created to act in the USA on matters that cross state lines and that have federal implications, such as spying and treason.

Homeland security is a different kettle entirely.  Read the Homeland Security Act.  The idiots that drew it up after 9/11 didn't use any checks or balances in it.  It is possibly the single scariest document ever allowed in this country.  HS can't break any laws, because they're not subject to any.... as long as they are chasing terrorists.  And they get to decide what a terrorist is.
Logged
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")
?

Andrew Ryan

  • 71
  • +0/-0
  • FLAT EARTH THEORY FAILZ
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #257 on: January 09, 2009, 01:27:14 PM »
I Don't support gun control, but at the same time, I don't think Citizens should be able to run around with Assault Rifles that penetrate steel...I don't think you need that much firepower for protection... Regular hand guns would do.
Logged
Foto Mastur

http://www.theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?www

^

To Flat Earthers:Go to that Website if you wish to see the truth.
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #258 on: January 09, 2009, 01:33:34 PM »
Which part of the constitution grants the executive branch the power to have an Federal police force with the powers that the FBI claims to have?  This cannot be legally done by signing a bill into law according to the 10th.  In order to grant a branch of government additional power to regulate or enforce something, it needs to be an amendment, not a bill

Same DEFINITELY goes for Homeland Security.

Not to mention many of the powers that these executive departments claim:

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.
Department of Education
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Energy
FCC
FDA

The 10th states:

Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #259 on: January 09, 2009, 02:30:30 PM »
Quote from: ragnarr on January 09, 2009, 01:33:34 PM
Which part of the constitution grants the executive branch the power to have an Federal police force with the powers that the FBI claims to have?  This cannot be legally done by signing a bill into law according to the 10th.  

The fact that the government it allowed to govern over interstate matters means that interstate crimes fall under their jurisdiction and therefore they need some sort of police force. It is an implied power.
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #260 on: January 09, 2009, 03:28:33 PM »
Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2009, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: ragnarr on January 09, 2009, 01:33:34 PM
Which part of the constitution grants the executive branch the power to have an Federal police force with the powers that the FBI claims to have?  This cannot be legally done by signing a bill into law according to the 10th.  

The fact that the government it allowed to govern over interstate matters means that interstate crimes fall under their jurisdiction and therefore they need some sort of police force. It is an implied power.

Congress is given the ability to regulate interstate commerce in the constitution, understood in plain English, that is the buying, selling and trading of goods/services.  That does not imply they can regulate criminal activity between the states, there are other clauses in the constitution that govern how that is handled.  The fact that some asshole judge decided that this word commerce enables them to regulate all interstate matters is bullshit IMO.  In addition,  intrastate commerce is within Federal jurisdiction now as well because a judge ruled that commerce within a state has an effect on interstate demand (because that market is removing itself from the interstate market).  Thereby thanks to a few activist judges and lawyers, the federal government can now regulate all activity between and within the states.  Far more power than was delegated to them by the constitution.
Logged
?

cramerian1

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Beware the FAT NINJA!!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #261 on: January 10, 2009, 08:44:01 PM »
Getting back to gun control, it would be intresting to have a statistic on how many gun crimes are commited using legally-purchased weapons v. guns obtained via arms trafficking.
Logged
Some people say women age like wine: With age, comes increased beauty. I respectively disagree. I say women age like milk: if they get to old, they become sour and lumpy. Maybe my hypothesis is related to my current bachelorhood...
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #262 on: January 10, 2009, 11:03:48 PM »
Quote from: cramerian1 on January 10, 2009, 08:44:01 PM
Getting back to gun control, it would be intresting to have a statistic on how many gun crimes are commited using legally-purchased weapons v. guns obtained via arms trafficking.

Any guns used for crimes are either bought illegally, or bought at a pawn shop that "forgets" a few steps in the sale. (minus a few crimes of intense passion)
Logged
?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #263 on: January 10, 2009, 11:08:38 PM »
Here are some statistics from a survey given to inmates in state and federal prisons on where the obtained their guns
Purchased from a retail store      8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop         3.8   
Purchased at a flea market        1.0   
Purchased in a gun show           0.7   
Obtained from friends or family   39.6   
Got on the street/illegal source  39.2   
Logged
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.
*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #264 on: January 11, 2009, 10:32:14 AM »
Total Road Deaths in the USA
   

42,196  2001
   

43,005  2002
   

42,884  2003
   

42,636  2004


I think we can assume these numbers have continued for the last 4 years as well so in the last 8 years approx 366,000 people have died in car accidents.   Time to outlaw cars.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #265 on: January 11, 2009, 10:40:53 AM »
Cars have other uses though, apart from as a hobby. After all, fencing's a hobby but carrying a sword down the street's still a bad idea.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #266 on: January 11, 2009, 10:42:00 AM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on January 11, 2009, 10:40:53 AM
Cars have other uses though, apart from as a hobby. After all, fencing's a hobby but carrying a sword down the street's still a bad idea.

Yet it is legal.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #267 on: January 11, 2009, 10:42:37 AM »
Is it there? Your country is mental.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
?

Jesus Crotch

  • 1250
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #268 on: January 11, 2009, 10:43:11 AM »
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on January 11, 2009, 10:32:14 AM
Total Road Deaths in the USA
   

42,196  2001
   

43,005  2002
   

42,884  2003
   

42,636  2004


I think we can assume these numbers have continued for the last 4 years as well so in the last 8 years approx 366,000 people have died in car accidents.   Time to outlaw cars.

I think I remember reading somewhere that vehicular homicides (usually killing someone while driving drunk) outnumber firearm murders in the US.  I can't find it now.

Why did I leave my 2nd amendment site on a crappy free host?  Now they seem to be defunct, and I can't get to it to move it!  I can't even get to the host's site!
Logged
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #269 on: January 11, 2009, 10:45:19 AM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on January 11, 2009, 10:42:37 AM
Is it there? Your country is mental.

Well there are no laws on transporting knives, only concealing them. Since carrying a sword is just transporting it... no laws.

Brandishing on the other hand....
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 67   Go Up
« previous next »