U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart, you are sad.

Keep raving about me wanting violent revolution with nothing to back up your argument, its fine with me. It only makes you look more the fool than your regular postings.

Because I said I can understand why people WOULD revolt, does not mean I am advocating it, and in fact, I have gone out of my way to point out several times that I DON'T advocate it.

I think I have had enough of your "special needs" education for today.

[Osborn F Enready]

And by the way Sonart, here is a listing of militias, since it is too much effort for you to use Google.

U.S. National Militia Directory

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn Keep raving about me wanting violent revolution with nothing to back up your argument, its fine with me.

Except your own words.

I'm reminded of the posturing young men who show up at our dog park, dressed in their gangsta fashions with their Pit Bulls leashed on thick chains. At that age they want to appear tough and a bit dangerous, to impress folks, especially the opposite sex. Immature young people, however, aren't very good at perceiving consequences... they don't understand that keeping dangerous things is actually dangerous. Not until their Pitbull kills some poor old lady's Pomeranian in a horrifying, bloody attack does the reality, which they never intended, finally sink in.

You guys jabber on about how it's time for a revolution, because to you a "Revolution" means some romantic, glorious adventure, an exercise in your theoretical constitutional rights with a few steely-eyed Minutemen facing down the evil government.

Until you're reminded that in reality such an event would be neither romantic nor glorious, but a massive bloodbath that would likely destroy a great deal of the nation and consume possibly millions of lives. Then it's, oh no, that's not what we meant at all.

Quote by: Osborn And by the way Sonart, here is a listing of militias, since it is too much effort for you to use Google.

And no doubt all of them adhering to the Constitutional provision that Congress "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

.

[brien]

You guys jabber on about how it's time for a revolution, because to you a "Revolution" means some romantic, glorious adventure, an exercise in your theoretical constitutional rights with a few steely-eyed Minutemen facing down the evil government.

So says Sonart in his own "jabber".

Revolutions can, and do, happen over a long period of time. Most people don't realize the American Revolution actually began around 1747 when the British Navy began impressing British subjects who were residents of Massachusetts when some 50 British soldiers deserted the HMS Lark in Boston Harbour. So from 1747 up to 1776, for some 29 years, the American Revolution was festering and brewing before a shot was ever fired in Lexington, Ma.

Even as far back as 1741 the Colonists were rioting and attacking sheriffs and judges over the impressment issue with regard to incidents off the HMS Shirley. So we see, the American revolution took time to seed, grow, and come to fruition for more than 35 years before Lexington in 1776.

Fast forward to the 21st Century. We, as Americans, who gather and think alike, can begin to make the difference in the US today. We can begin by promising to protect and defend all of our Constitutional Rights, enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, from anyone who would seek to remove or deny those rights. We can begin to gather in places like NH and join the Free State movement. We can "gather" over the internet in these modern times as we do here on Volconvo to establish ties and connections for liberty. We can vote our conscience and reject the same old Republicrat crowd not to worry that our vote may be "wasted".

Firearms, and our right to own and use them, are a part of our fabric, but they don't have to be the point man in our assualt forward. We can continually move forward armed with firearm and pen even when the naysayers, doubters, and mockers tell us we can't accomplish anything in light of the government by Diplodicus. Who knows what will happen in the next 50 years. The seeds are planted in NH and liberty grows there, as it did over 250 years ago. The last Revolution took as much time and the true patriots were never in doubt of the outcome.

Revoultion can't be marginalized by those who seek to trvialize it by painting portraits merely from their own shadowy glimpse into American History. Revolution takes time, as we saw in the 18th Century, and the next one may take even more time, but those who deny it can't happen in the 21st Century are merely ignoring history. I say : "se ya wouldn't want to be ya."

[Osborn F Enready]

AMEN BRIEN!

I fully agree, and appreciate the level of intelligent discussion you have brought to the table, unlike so many others.....who I won't name.

Not a doubt in my mind sir, not a doubt.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien Revolutions can, and do, happen over a long period of time.

Yeah?.. so what?

Quote by: brien Fast forward to the 21st Century. We, as Americans, who gather and think alike, can begin to make the difference in the US today. We can begin by promising to protect and defend all of our Constitutional Rights, enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, from anyone who would seek to remove or deny those rights. We can begin to gather in places like NH and join the Free State movement. We can "gather" over the internet in these modern times as we do here on Volconvo to ... blah blah blah.

Could you possibly backpeddle any faster?

Look, brien, you guys have made the point -- repeatedly and vehemently -- that the right to bear arms exits, at least in part, as a defense against domestic tyranny. To bear arms... that can mean ONLY ONE THING! The armed overthrow of the government or some form of armed insurrection. What that DOESN'T mean is that a few hundred thousand plucky libertarians are going march on the Capital, wave their guns in the air, and watch the government run off in terror to catch the nearest train to Canada.

Y'with me so far, brien?

Quote by: brien Firearms, and our right to own and use them, are a part of our fabric, but they don't have to be the point man in our assualt forward. We can continually move forward armed with firearm and pen even when the naysayers, doubters, and mockers tell us we can't accomplish anything in light of the government by Diplodicus.

No brien, you can't. Number one, anyone who seriously attempts to INCITE ARMED INSURRECTION, either in print or in speech, will be promptly arrested.

But more importantly, regardless of what comes from the pen, the moment people attempt to use weapons against the government, they will be put down by whatever force is deemed necessary, and believe me, the U.S. possesses a great deal of force, from the police to the National Guard to the Armed Forces.

None of your silly rhetoric is going to change that. NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT can allow an armed insurrection to succeed without using every means available to stop it.

PERIOD!!!

That means the use of whatever force is necessary, and the more determined the insurrection, the more determined and bloody the government's effort to defeat it.... your silly tongue-wagging about naysayers, doubters and mockers notwithstanding. The smaller the insurrection, the more easily it will be defeated, the larger the insurrection, then the larger the bloodbath, until you get to a full blown civil war. And a full blown civil war, in THIS country, with the military weapons potentially available to both sides, well.... if we compare it in scale to our OTHER civil war -- 600,000 dead out of a population of 30 million, we're talking 6 million dead.

Quote by: osborn I fully agree, and appreciate the level of intelligent discussion you have brought to the table, unlike so many others.....who I won't name.

LOL!! Exactly how does a libertarian's wet dream of some magical, bloodless armed overthrow of the U.S. government amount to intelligent discussion. Do you truly imagine that the majority of fat and comfy Americans are going to take to the streets, guns loaded, because of your unhappiness with the current American political situation? And the more tyrannical any conceivable future government might become, the tighter it's hold on the military will be, and bloodier the supression of an armed revolt.

You guys are wallowing in silly daydreams and calling it 'intelligent discussion'. Get over yourselves.


.

[Praxius]

On the gun topic a little.... I've seen people in the forums talk about if everybody had a gun on them at all times, they can prevent other's from committing crimes such as shooting someone else, or going into a school and shooting people, or going into a mall and shooting a bunch of people, or a couple of churches and shooting a bunch of people...... or now what I just heard on the news, a couple of school kids getting shot as they got off their school bus.

A question for those who believe guns can solve these problems:

Exactly how will everybody having guns actually solve the problem?

If they are just going to come around a corner without warning and unload on everybody in front of them indiscriminately, and don't care if they die in the process..... the best you have to hope for is reducing the number of people these guys take out......

There is a reduction of the amount of people getting killed if you're lucky.... but that's not going to reduce the amount of people going out to commit these sorts of acts.

So what would be the solution for this problem?

I'm not throwing in my judgment on any responses at the moment, nor am I attempting to imply my opinion at this stage. I supplied some of the more memorable shootings and applying those as examples to an equation for a logical solution.

I'm all ears.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Praxius On the gun topic a little.... I've seen people in the forums talk about if everybody had a gun on them at all times, they can prevent other's from committing crimes such as shooting someone else, or going into a school and shooting people, or going into a mall and shooting a bunch of people, or a couple of churches and shooting a bunch of people...... or now what I just heard on the news, a couple of school kids getting shot as they got off their school bus. A question for those who believe guns can solve these problems: Exactly how will everybody having guns actually solve the problem? If they are just going to come around a corner without warning and unload on everybody in front of them indiscriminately, and don't care if they die in the process..... the best you have to hope for is reducing the number of people these guys take out...... There is a reduction of the amount of people getting killed if you're lucky.... but that's not going to reduce the amount of people going out to commit these sorts of acts. So what would be the solution for this problem? I'm not throwing in my judgment on any responses at the moment, nor am I attempting to imply my opinion at this stage. I supplied some of the more memorable shootings and applying those as examples to an equation for a logical solution. I'm all ears.

the reduction in number of victims is a major point in the idea, as well as the theory that having more people able to protect themselves discourages this sort of thing.

The main idea in having a well-armed populace is that crimes of all nature will lessen, such as theft, burglary, robbery, rape, etc. Mass shootings are still possible, but the likelyhood that they would be sucessfull (by shooting more than the first one or two victims) would greatly drop.

No one really want's everyone to be armed all the time, the point is for everyone to have the ability to defend themselves and the people around them if they choose to.

As the saying goes, an armed society is a polite society.

[mark3748]

Oh, and I forgot to point out that mass shootings only tend to occur in so-called "Gun-Free" zones, which means the criminals are less likely to run in to any resistance. Criminals like easy targets, even if they are suicidal.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: mark the reduction in number of victims is a major point in the idea, as well as the theory that having more people able to protect themselves discourages this sort of thing.

A simplistic theory that's contradicted by the inconvenient fact that the United States, who's citizens are awash in gun ownership, is also the most deadly, violent nation in the 1st World, and most of the rest of it. For every 'defense' by guns, there's other examples, such as the story brought up recently of a property owner shooting some young kid for walking across his lawn. He didn't MEAN to kill the kid, just scare him, but alas, guns just make killing so dang easy. Then there was the Japanese student looking for directions to a Halloween party... on and on.

The volunteer at the church was a police trained, licensed expert who they were lucky enough to have in their congregation. Most people aren't police trained, but like the thousands of clueless idiots auditioning for American Idol, we all think we know exactly what we're doing. Arm everyone and you'll have chaos.

Quote by: mark Oh, and I forgot to point out that mass shootings only tend to occur in so-called "Gun-Free" zones, which means the criminals are less likely to run in to any resistance.

You also forgot to mention is that the reason we have mass shootings in the first place, unlike other nations, is that we live in a culture that worships guns, the 'Great Equalizer'. Our mass media -- movies, TV, computer games -- all reinforce the message that good guys are handy with guns, that strength equals being armed and that problems get solved with gunfire.

Messages these poor souls, longing for a solution to their problems, took to heart.
.

[Osborn F Enready]

What a bunch of subjective nonsense Sonart.

Never mind of course you own a gun......

[brien]

Look, brien, you guys have made the point -- repeatedly and vehemently -- that the right to bear arms exits, at least in part, as a defense against domestic tyranny. To bear arms... that can mean ONLY ONE THING! The armed overthrow of the government or some form of armed insurrection. What that DOESN'T mean is that a few hundred thousand plucky libertarians are going march on the Capital, wave their guns in the air, and watch the government run off in terror to catch the nearest train to Canada. Y'with me so far, brien?

No, I am not with you Sonart, because you are so far behind you are in danger of being lapped on the track of the debate. We left your rear view mirror long ago and now we are coming to lap you again.

You are full of it, once again, Sonart. You can't appeal to intellectuality so you resort to creating illusions. I laid out exactly how a Revoultion can work, and has worked here in the US, and you either are ignorant of historical fact or simply choose to ignore facts. Either way, you missed the boat. Apparently you aren't follwing too closely here Sonart.

I am not charging up Capitol Hill with an armed bunch of fanatics as you would so insincerely try to portray. Neither am I Tom Paine. You can't argue from a intellectual p.o.v. so you once again resort to your marginalizing the debate by conjuring up your own self serving banal vision to support your specious arguments. Revolutions can take long periods of time and involve tactics now that can't be readily put down by conventional forces. Deal with facts not hyperbole, Sonart.

Number one, anyone who seriously attempts to INCITE ARMED INSURRECTION, either in print or in speech, will be promptly arrested.

Once again either you misunderstand the points I put forth but I suspect you are merely responding to what you would like me to write in order to accomodate your arguments. Never said I would write anything to incite violence. Yet, you would probably be the first person to come to the defense of the Muslim Extremists who preach the destruction of the US in some US Mosques today. So take your duplicity and stow it. We all stocked up here.

None of your silly rhetoric is going to change that. NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT can allow an armed insurrection to succeed without using every means available to stop it.

Sonart your duplicitious bloomers are showing yet once again. You have acknowledged time and time again how the US military can't defeat the terrorists in the M.E., yet when the same tactics could apply to the US, you disallow that it could never happen. You use your duplicitious arguments to suit your justifications when it suits your flawed logic. Doesn't work on me. Your transparancy is only exceeded by your complete and utter temerity to think you can fool those of us who know you here.

Sell this drivel somewhere else Sonart, as I said before, we all stocked up here.

[Osborn F Enready]

Also Sonart, you may wish to see this:

This is just one states Constitution, VERIFYING THE FACT that the people have the right to ALTER OR ABOLISH government.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

ARTICLE I: BILL OF RIGHTS INALIENABLE RIGHTS. §1 All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. (1851) RIGHT TO ALTER, REFORM, OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT, AND REPEAL SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. §2 All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefi t, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the General Assembly. (1851)

You claim the people have no right, but you are so sadly mistaken of the facts it should be obvious, as almost all states have a similar clause in their STATE Constitution.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What a bunch of subjective nonsense Sonart. Never mind of course you own a gun......

Makes more sense then the other arguments I have read in here as well he also touches base with the main fueler of the problems relating to gun violence.

No matter how many statistics or studies are issued over the years, there's always the mental road block that the only solution to the problem is with more guns.

Here... let me put out that grease fire with some more grease.... there we go, that should do it.... what the? It's now worse.... who would have thunk it?

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: Makes more sense then the other arguments I have read in here as well he also touches base with the main fueler of the problems relating to gun violence.

Yea, well you're a Canadian, so I don't expect you to agree, nor would it matter, since you aren't part of the voting public or the campaign either way.

As far as "makes more sense", you're the one saying logic is "subjective", so I know where your sense of sense resides.

No insult intended, but thats the facts.

Prax said: No matter how many statistics or studies are issued over the years, there's always the mental road block that the only solution to the problem is with more guns.

Thats the fact, because people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, that the government nor the people have the right to revoke, whereas the people RESERVE the right to remove government, should it attempt to place such anti-liberty nonsense into law.

This idea that guns can be removed from society is more absurd than your counter argument, and once again, you don't want to admit the FACT that your police and military still use guns to solve problems that CAN'T be dealt with with reason. Unfortunately, you don't see the obvious distrust issue as disturbing, but thats your right as a Canadian.

We can agree to disagree Prax, but you non-stop bantering of what you call an answer is riddled with logical holes you refuse to address.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Also Sonart, you may wish to see this: This is just one states Constitution, VERIFYING THE FACT that the people have the right to ALTER OR ABOLISH government. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf You claim the people have no right, but you are so sadly mistaken of the facts it should be obvious, as almost all states have a similar clause in their STATE Constitution.

Just because it's in your constitution, doesn't mean those who wrote it were perfect.... they were human too, with all the short sightedness that we all have about the future and what our actions and decisions will produce.

Just because it says so in some couple of hundred year old piece of paper, doesn't make it right, and I think someone screwed up royally.

And I also remember I mentioned something along the lines of people following the constitution more then the bible, where one can not question it.... this isn't some devine book written centuries to shape a global religion by the word of God.... this is a scrap of paper a pile of humans wrote up to lay the foundation of a country, and it is clearly partially responsible for it's own distruction, due to the fact that they didn't clarify Am#2 better then they did.

What do you expect to do?

Never question this constitution?

Do you expect it to last for another 500 years?

Do you actually think this flawed design will survive that long?

Do you think this constitution stands a chance at actually protecting your country forever?

I still haven't seen any logical solution to the random gun related violence yet... except to add more guns to the equation...... isn't gonna work....

[Osborn F Enready]

Keep on talking to yourself Prax.

Your utter disregard for individual rights and your insistence on logic being subjective precludes me from having an intelligent debate with you on the topic.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yea, well you're a Canadian, so I don't expect you to agree, nor would it matter, since you aren't part of the voting public or the campaign either way.

Yeah well there ya go.... I hear plenty of opinions come towards Canada's direction on things we do, via the US public.... therefore I shall continue my opinions in an equal fashion.

As far as "makes more sense", you're the one saying logic is "subjective", so I know where your sense of sense resides.

Never said it was subjective, you implied that is what I ment.... and I don't like using the word subjective anyways, considdering it has at least 8 different meanings in the English dictionary, it doesn't hold up as a great debate defuser, and besides.... too many people like to throw it around when they hit a road block in debate that they can not defend against.

No insult intended, but thats the facts.

There's no such thing as facts... don't make me take off my belt

Thats the fact, because people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, that the government nor the people have the right to revoke, whereas the people RESERVE the right to remove government, should it attempt to place such anti-liberty nonsense into law.

Wrong again. Like Bush inventing his own "Facts" and rules, just because your one constitution out of everybody else's in the world says it's a right to keep and bare arms for defense, doesn't make it so.

Your "Facts of Life" may be acustomed to firearms being a part of everyday life.... that doesn't mean that "Fact" is true.

Everybody has the right to defend themselves.... but I don't find any logic in some old scrap of paper stating it should be a firearm for defense.

If I can defend my life by taking someone's head and smashing it between a car door, then I acted on my right to defend myself.... there is no need, no logic, or anything stating within the constitution in how it was and still is worded, that states you have the right to bear "firearms" not one damn thing.... you have the right to "bear arms".... but somehow you guys decided to squeeze in "Fire" in along with "Arms."

And that isn't "Fact" either if you go and throw words in where none exist.

This idea that guns can be removed from society is more absurd than your counter argument, and once again, you don't want to admit the FACT that your police and military still use guns to solve problems that CAN'T be dealt with with reason.

Um... probably because I don't need to admit the obvious..... that still doesn't bring any case in defense that any slack jawed youkle can go get a gun to do with as they please, which is basically what's going on in the US now.... There's nothing regulating nor restricting usage of firearms until someone actually commits a crime, and by that time, it's already too late.... so what's the point?

My main point in all this, is there are no preventative measures put in place to stop or at least reduce chances of these things occuring, nor does your continual support of more firearms in public solve this problem.

If I decided to go suicidal tomorrow and go grab a gun to go and mow a few people down, I'm not really going to give a rats ass who all has a gun.... I'm Suicidal... I'm not going to care. If anything, I'll be shooting those who draw their guns first, thereby they make themselves more of a target holding a firearm, then those running away without one.

Unfortunately, you don't see the obvious distrust issue as disturbing, but thats your right as a Canadian.

That's my right as a human, country doesn't play a part in this mentality..... of course I also wasn't born and raised being taught that a gun is the be all end all sollution, but there ya go.

We can agree to disagree Prax, but you non-stop bantering of what you call an answer is riddled with logical holes you refuse to address.

Not exactly.... I haven't refused to address anything that couldn't be addressed at this point.... my answer maybe riddled with holes and may not stop all gun related crimes... but it's better then not having any solution period and allowing this to continue on year after year, week after week. The logic I see in your side of the argument, is that the solution is to load up more firearms onto the streets and hope for the best.....

..... sounds a lot like voting in one of the various political clones for president and hoping for the best.

This isn't banter, this is as you like to put it, Fact.... the fact of the matter is that everytime this type of mass shooting occurs, the moment anybody brings up the topic of some kind of gun control.... officials and gun promoters start claiming that it is not the time to discuss such issues during the time of families mourning their losses..... then it's forgotten about until the next one, and then the same game is played.... then forgotten about again.... I've seen the same pattern occur since Columbine and it just keeps on going.

Stay the Course seems to be the motto.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Keep on talking to yourself Prax. Your utter disregard for individual rights and your insistence on logic being subjective precludes me from having an intelligent debate with you on the topic.

Wow... great response, and yet again.... great solution to the problem.... Ignore it some more... I'm sure it'll go away.

I suppose the problem can be a bit too complicated for some.

[brien]

No matter how many statistics or studies are issued over the years, there's always the mental road block that the only solution to the problem is with more guns.

Wrong .... You and the Sonarts of the world will never get it because you are elitist people who think you know better than everyone else how to tackle the problem of gun violence. Your solution is the ONLY way.

You don't get the fact that people who use firearms in the commission of a crime are the problem, not the gun. You elitists want to punish law abiding citizens rather than the criminals. Typical

I don't know how many times I have to write it but the surest way to solve crimes involving firearms is to punish the criminal with severe, swift and certain penalties. Firearms don't discharge themselves. Surely even the dimwits in the world realize that it is criminals who are responsible for crimes involving firearms, not the guns.

But, hey be an ostrich, the feathers suit you well.