I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that the Bill of Rights involves individual rights - not state rights/militia. Nothing about throwing in/out. Poor wording on my behalf.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
CCW on campus...a list of places where it can happen
- Thread starter feddoc
- Start date
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that the Bill of Rights involves individual rights - not state rights/militia. Nothing about throwing in/out. Poor wording on my behalf.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
As someone who was termed a "wife beater" on nothing less than an accusation, and treated as a convicted felon by the legal system as a result, I say you need to look at who they call "X Y AND Z".
Because, if you own guns, the other side will call you demented if they can.
Gun control laws are not about guns, they are about control.
A wise man has said that many times.
To be fair, the first time I shot a 44, I realized it was more gun than I could handle as a woman.
It seems to me that you are the one embarrassing yourself with nonsensical posts like this one, so perhaps we will once again have to agree to disagree. Frankly, it is difficult to refute much of this post, since much of it seems only marginally coherent and you seem to be arguing with points I never made. I get that you love your guns and you aren't a fan of mine. You aren’t the first to hold either of those views.
But really, I can't for the life of me figure out what it is in my posts that has you so worked up. I've stated that it is a bit silly to suggest that any law pertaining to guns is unreasonable is, well, unreasonable. It seems we actually agree on that point.
Do you think I'm saying that the FF (and the people who voted for the Bill of Rights) made the 2nd amendment flawed, but that the others are all sound and don’t ever need re-interpretation for today's conditions? That's what I get from your post, but not only did I not say that, I don't believe it.
Maybe you would understand me a bit better if I spoke your language. Let me know if adding a bunch of random dashes and unnecessary ellipses will help.
The founding fathers could not have foreseen a lot things. There is that pesky issue of the constitution not calling for an Air Force, for example. Even the most strict of constructionists will agree that there are certain judgment calls and adaptations that need to be made as times change. It has nothing to do with being out of touch. I just wonder if the FF would have felt like I should be able to cruise through a shopping mall with a 50 cal rifle and a laser sight. And maybe they would have been fine with it. Regardless, I feel like putting reasonable (and that's where the issue is, of course) restrictions on owning guns doesn't realistically impede anyone's right to defend themselves.
Beyond that, I really don't know what else to say since I'm still trying to make sense of much of your post.
Of course not -- don't be ridiculous. Criminals, dullards, women (just kidding) and the mentally deficient should NOT have access to firearms ...
No ... again, of course not. And again -- you are just being ridiculous. But they DID consider the 2nd Amendment in the light of the best, most advanced firearms of the day .... didn't they??? As with everything; it's all relative. And they were amazingly prescient in their views on most things -- that's why they are still with us today ... those angry, ol' white men.
Soooo-o-o-o-o-o ... riddle me this: Why would one suppose that the Founding Fathers were "out of touch" on THIS amendment -- "automatic weapons", blah, blah, blah ..... but not the rest?? You are being specious in your argument. Do you even KNOW how many "automatic" weapons have been used in the commission of a crime according to the FBI stats -- Hollywood notwithstanding -- since the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934??? You DO KNOW what that was all about, yea-as???
Suggestion: you are starting to come across as a well-intentioned fool where it pertains to firearms, legal ownership, and the 2nd Amendment. I suggest you do some "stupid study" prior to commenting further -- you know; to save yourself from further embarrassment.
It seems to me that you are the one embarrassing yourself with nonsensical posts like this one, so perhaps we will once again have to agree to disagree. Frankly, it is difficult to refute much of this post, since much of it seems only marginally coherent and you seem to be arguing with points I never made. I get that you love your guns and you aren't a fan of mine. You aren’t the first to hold either of those views.
But really, I can't for the life of me figure out what it is in my posts that has you so worked up. I've stated that it is a bit silly to suggest that any law pertaining to guns is unreasonable is, well, unreasonable. It seems we actually agree on that point.
Do you think I'm saying that the FF (and the people who voted for the Bill of Rights) made the 2nd amendment flawed, but that the others are all sound and don’t ever need re-interpretation for today's conditions? That's what I get from your post, but not only did I not say that, I don't believe it.
Maybe you would understand me a bit better if I spoke your language. Let me know if adding a bunch of random dashes and unnecessary ellipses will help.
The founding fathers could not have foreseen a lot things. There is that pesky issue of the constitution not calling for an Air Force, for example. Even the most strict of constructionists will agree that there are certain judgment calls and adaptations that need to be made as times change. It has nothing to do with being out of touch. I just wonder if the FF would have felt like I should be able to cruise through a shopping mall with a 50 cal rifle and a laser sight. And maybe they would have been fine with it. Regardless, I feel like putting reasonable (and that's where the issue is, of course) restrictions on owning guns doesn't realistically impede anyone's right to defend themselves.
Beyond that, I really don't know what else to say since I'm still trying to make sense of much of your post.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Point of order:
The USAF was handled quite well under the Army, until they got their panties in a bind and wanted to be their own service.
IMHO they should still be the USAAF not USAF. Do we have the "Naval Air Force" as a separate service from the USN. NO.
Further proof that the AF is whiny.
I now cease the threadjack and return you to your regularly scheduled libtard whining and reasonable retort from the wiser members.
The USAF was handled quite well under the Army, until they got their panties in a bind and wanted to be their own service.
IMHO they should still be the USAAF not USAF. Do we have the "Naval Air Force" as a separate service from the USN. NO.
Further proof that the AF is whiny.
I now cease the threadjack and return you to your regularly scheduled libtard whining and reasonable retort from the wiser members.
Please ... I've been insulted by experts before; and you ain't one ... and don't try to patronize me -- you lose all credibility w/me and it only puts you at a disadvantage in any discussion with me. I don't embarrass myself -- haven't for decades -- you'll have to do better than that ... but I won't hold my breath.
You can't "speak my language" and I have no desire to "understand" your point of view; heard it a 1,000 times and it's always the same. And it's always wrong. Sooo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o -- why try?? Like you said -- we disagree. Go chat with someone who wants to listen to your uninformed prattle ... ....
Well, that's YOUR opinion, and of course, it's sadly ignorant when considering the question: i.e., it's wrong.
Who gets to determine what's "reasonable" -- what with >20,000 largely redundant and often ineffective laws already on the books ??? That should be "reasonable" enough for most "reasonable" people, don't you think??? I guess we need more "reasonableness" to combat the lawlessness that you fear "might" emanate from the law abiding citizenry who choose to arm themselves.
Why?? Whatever for???
You don't know what you're talking about and dwell in the land of emotion and wishful thinking. We disagree; let's just leave it at that, yea-as??? I'm really NOT going to "argue" with you, 'cause you don't know what you're talkin' about and it's a waste of my time.
Be on your way, young lady. Nothing to look at here ...
2 words: Slippery Slope.
Actually, Constitutionally you are waaaay off base here. The Bill of Rights, as it was written was designed to limit the power of the federal government. Period. This is a great example for many as to why an active judiciary isn't always the enemy.
The Bill of Rights was gradually applied to the states through a series of Supreme Court appelate cases begining with Gitlow v. New York (although some would suggest that as early as 1897 the process had begun with Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago...
Point being, your statement is radically inaccurate. The subject is much more complicated than you are giving it credit for. Incorporation was not a given when the Bill of Rights was written.
Ok, I went ahead and got rid of that previous post cause my wording and sarcasm didn't really work out like I imagined.
I know the Bill of Rights is exactly what you said - it limits the power of the fed. gov. I know incorporation was not given in it to the states. I was making a reference to the emphasis some people put on the interpretation of the right being a collective right of the people to bear arms vs. the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are individual rights, so my point was why would only one be a right reserved to the collective, or just those in a militia.
So, point being, I just did a piss poor job. I am not as Constitutionally illiterate as I made you think.
There have been some good points and I respect the conservative opinion. Does anyone have a problem with guns not being allowed in airports or on commercial airplanes? Should you be allowed to defend yourself with a gun on an airplane if it becomes hijacked? What about courthouses and police stations? Why were those rules put in place? What should be the regulation on weapons if any and where is it okay to draw the line (i.e. you should be able to carry a handgun, but not an automatic weapon)? If the intent is to protect yourself and the "bad guys" are carrying a fully automatic weapon should you also be able to carry an automatic weapon to defend yourself?
Ok, I went ahead and got rid of that previous post cause my wording and sarcasm didn't really work out like I imagined.
I know the Bill of Rights is exactly what you said - it limits the power of the fed. gov. I know incorporation was not given in it to the states. I was making a reference to the emphasis some people put on the interpretation of the right being a collective right of the people to bear arms vs. the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are individual rights, so my point was why would only one be a right reserved to the collective, or just those in a militia.
So, point being, I just did a piss poor job. I am not as Constitutionally illiterate as I made you think.
No sweat... sorry I missed it. Gotta love the internets...
Bogey_spotter is right in some ways and the saying has some truth to it, but I disagree and would bet that even though locks are not completely effective, Bogey_spotter still locks his house and car. Gate guards may only keep those people out who would try to use the road to enter a base, but we still employ them as a measure. Passwords may only keep out honest people and those hackers who aren't good enough to get around them, but everyone of us uses them as a way to protect our personal data. I don't think anyone is claiming that restrictive gun laws stop gun crimes, but they can be an important piece of the puzzle.
Yes, but locks and passwords, and guards do not infringe on the rights of those who have no intention of robbing your house, hacking your computer, or firebombing your hangar.
Nor did the founding fathers anticipate the internet or computers or cellular phones as they relate to the 1st amendment.