Justices agree on right to own guns

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Halofan Sonart, please keep things civil, lest we fall into throwing insults. Thank You.

But by smugly implying that we're emotionally retarded and sexually immature, Milton was simply making polite conversation. Got it, Halofan... thanks for your un-biased concern.

And as I said, Milton is way to intelligent -- (sounds like a compliment to me) -- to be so stupid as to think that not having a Right to something means that thing is therefore illegal. I mean, we don't have a constitutional 'Right' to own automobiles, now do we, yet the country's awash in them as well. One can only conclude that my highly intelligent friend Milton is swinging wildly out of frustrated desperation.

Not to be confused with emotional retardation or sexual immaturity.

.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's Freud, who's something of an expert, so I don't think it would count as insulting, just if the boot fits. And you can always come back with freuds thoughts on men compensating with things such as guns.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind One could argue that the attachment to the gun is unhealthy. To the point where a gun is more then a defense mechanism but a way of life. I'd rather err on the side of caution when dealing with a deadly weapon.

Again, you seem to want to punish all, law abiding citizens included, for "potential crime", and that is not how our justice system was set up to operate.

Quote by: Winter wind Guns cause death, but guns save lives...nice little catch-22. If only we could just give guns to the good guys... It's not that simple.

Well, since you seem to realize that, why would you deny the true law abiding citizen the right to be a good guy with a gun?


In effect, that's what you are agruing for, a state in which only criminals, and the government have guns.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" -- Mae West

Why I'm happy to see you. Did you really have to ask?

Quote by: Sonart An "irrational" fear of anything is the sign of a sick mind, Milton. Fearing deadly weapons in the hands of basically anyone that wants one is entirely rational.

Thus the need to have the ability to meet force, with force.

Quote by: Sonart For someone so smart, you really are stupid, Milton. Not having a "Right" to own firearms is not the same as not being legally able to. Gun control legislation has only nibbled at the edges of gun ownership... no machine guns,no assault rifles, waiting periods, criminal or mental restrictions, etc. And thanks to the NRA's 'Big Lie' that we all do have that right, and Congressional pandering to gun owners who believe it, the loopholes are immense. Gun shows and private sales are practically immune from any regulation, 3rd party transfers, gun dealer immunity from liability, back door sales by manufacturers.

Again, I disagree with the contention that "arms" = "guns", and your whole hypothesis rest on the assumption that this was original intent. I happen to think the Framers were wiser, and declared that the citizen must have the right to defend themselves from any aggressor, and thus chose "arms", and not "muskets".

Quote by: Sonart We're in this "mess" because America is literally awash in guns... 200,000 million of them. Only when DC took the final desperate step of banning handguns -- and the Bush League finally tipped the Supreme Court -- did the gun lobby finally rise up to challenge the current law of the land.

So, an idea that guns are inherently dangerous surfaces 225 years after the countries inception, and now your law, and order people think it's time to address a cultural problem? Gimme a break.


You people are rying to idiot proof the Earth, and I don't approve. I shall not bare the burden of every individual to lazy, or stupid to educate themselves about the requirements for life on Earth.


If you want to, do it through volunteer organizations, or charity.

Quote by: Sonart [I advocate voting for people who supported things like the Bradey Bill, not those who opposed it. What's your recommendation? Ron Paul?

Obviously. At least any answer he may offer to your problem will lie within the bounds of the Constitution, and you can sleep well knowing you will not be complicit due to association with him. (I'm offering a preemptive Shut up to GHooK )

Quote by: Sonart [Besides, this is a pathetic, loaded question.

No it's not. It's at the very heart of why I accuse you of agenda driven behavior.

Quote by: Sonart I can't control what people do once they're in office or the compromises they feel obliged to make. I can only vote for those who I think are more likely to support my views, and that sure as hell isn't John McCain or Ron Paul.

Oh, but you're the one telling me that voting them out of office is "my voice" in government, and yet you guys aren't even willing to admit fault on the part of the people involved, let alone remove them from office for legislating outside of your political philosophy.


Democrats are unaccountable, accross the board, anywhere you find one. They sign all of the Republicans bad laws, and they create a bunch of their own. They're corrupt top to bottom.


The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over again, and expecting a different result. Well, that's what you guys are going when you advocate voting for people who can be proven to have voted for the status quo, again, and again.


Snap out of it, vote for real change. Ron Paul 08

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart But by smugly implying that we're emotionally retarded and sexually immature, Milton was simply making polite conversation. Got it, Halofan... thanks for your un-biased concern.

A smug implication? I thought it was a legitimate question, and I did phrase it as a question.

Quote by: Sonart And as I said, Milton is way to intelligent -- (sounds like a compliment to me) -- to be so stupid as to think that not having a Right to something means that thing is therefore illegal. I mean, we don't have a constitutional 'Right' to own automobiles, now do we, yet the country's awash in them as well.

We don't have groups of Liberal Activists ( Gawd only knows whos funding them ) running around trying to take away my automobile, do we? ( Not that I own one of those either. )

Quote by: Sonart One can only conclude that my highly intelligent friend Milton is swinging wildly out of frustrated desperation.

How utterly generous of you to compliment me so.


However, we both know the truth is that I'm trying to defend the right of intelligent people to defend themselves from coercion, or thieves, or fraudsters, or treasonous traitors. And yes, even from foreign aggressors who might one day invade.

Quote by: Sonart Not to be confused with emotional retardation or sexual immaturity.

Actually, I was a late bloomer, a real Wall Flower, and I remain somewhat introverted well into my forties.


Anybody want to make anything of it?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That's Freud, who's something of an expert, so I don't think it would count as insulting, just if the boot fits.

Freud deserves great credit for essentially discovering the field of psycho-analysis, but like many early explorers, many of his conclusions have been discredited and revised over the ensuing generations. But like I said, an irrational fear of anything isn't particularly healthy and I'm unclear how someone like myself, who owns a gun and enjoys shooting, has an irrational fear of guns.
.
Nah, once again your slavish sycophancy to whatever Milton says betrays your common sense... in the most gun violent civilized nation on earth, a respectable fear of guns is entirely rational.

Or are you saying you' wouldn't feel any fear looking down the barrel of a gun?

Quote by: Milton So, an idea that guns are inherently dangerous surfaces 225 years after the countries inception, and now your law, and order people think it's time to address a cultural problem? Gimme a break.

Milton, Milton, Milton... your disingenuous need to create false premises just oozes out of you, doesn't it. I have stated on many occasions that guns served a valuable role in the first half of this country's existance, helping to tame the vast wilderness that once comprised 90% of what would become the U.S.. But certainly in the second half of the last century... with America's transition to a coast to coast urban/suburban industrialized society and the increased firepower of modern weapons... , yes, absolutely, firearms are the pet tiger that's grown far, far to big and dangerous to be kept any longer as a family pet.

Quote by: Milton You people are rying to idiot proof the Earth, and I don't approve. I shall not bare the burden of every individual to lazy, or stupid to educate themselves about the requirements for life on Earth.

Well, with 300 million well armed Americans making this the most murderous civilized nation on earth, a little idiot proofing is well called for. But then, you're the libertarian who conveniently forgets the incredible misery the excesses of unbridled capitalist 'liberty' has visited on Americans who weren't lucky enough to be Ayn Randian alpha dogs.

Quote by: Milton Again, I disagree with the contention that "arms" = "guns", and your whole hypothesis rest on the assumption that this was original intent. I happen to think the Framers were wiser, and declared that the citizen must have the right to defend themselves from any aggressor, and thus chose "arms", and not "muskets".

You can disagree all you like, Milton, but that's not what they wrote... they wrote, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,..."

They wrote that qualifying statement for a specific reason, and more than anything, it makes their "original intent" crystal clear. And to your point, they wrote "arms", not "guns", arms being the more military term.

1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
10. bear arms,
.....a. to carry weapons.
.....b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces.
11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped:

Quote by: Milton Obviously. At least any answer he may offer to your problem will lie within the bounds of the Constitution,

Within the bounds of the Constitution, you do NOT have an individual right to own guns. Get over it.

Quote by: Milton No it's not. It's at the very heart of why I accuse you of agenda driven behavior.

LOLOL!! YOU accuse ME of agenda driven behavior.

Quote by: Milton Oh, but you're the one telling me that voting them out of office is "my voice" in government, and yet you guys aren't even willing to admit fault on the part of the people involved, let alone remove them from office for legislating outside of your political philosophy.

Hey, when people I voted for ran the government, things were great. When conservatives I didn't vote for ran Washington for the last 8 years, things went to sh!t. I'm sure Ron Paul would cheerfully take us all back to the 18th century, but alas, the world has moved into the 21st.

Quote by: Milton A smug implication? I thought it was a legitimate question, and I did phrase it as a question.

So there was no implication at all. Gosh, Milton, I'm so sorry I misjudged your intent.

Quote by: Milton We don't have groups of Liberal Activists ( Gawd only knows whos funding them ) running around trying to take away my automobile, do we? ( Not that I own one of those either. )

Like I said, if automobiles were suddenly to disappear, this country would implode. America does, however, have groups of activists running around trying to make automobiles either safer,one of whom is running for President yet again...



or trying to make them environmentally responsible.

Quote by: Milton However, we both know the truth is that I'm trying to defend the right of intelligent people to defend themselves from coercion, or thieves, or fraudsters, or treasonous traitors. And yes, even from foreign aggressors who might one day invade.

A lovely intention, Milton, except that it has accomplished the complete opposite, making Americans considerably less safe and our country a far more deadly, dangerous place to live.

What will it take for you to see that? In theory, Communism was supposed to create a workers utopia, a benefit to all mankind... alas, it's grand intentions were overtaken by the gritty reality of human nature. Likewise your dreamy ideological good intentions have long since been overwhelmed by the grim reality of human nature.

Face up to it.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Freud deserves great credit for essentially discovering the field of psycho-analysis, but like many early explorers, many of his conclusions have been discredited and revised over the ensuing generations. But like I said, an irrational fear of anything isn't particularly healthy and I'm unclear how someone like myself, who owns a gun and enjoys shooting, has an irrational fear of guns.

It's "irrational" that you fear them in the hands of others, hypocritical as well. But beyond that, I generally feel it's a subversive movement Hell bent on destroying every last vestige of our Constitutional limitations.

Quote by: Sonart Nah, once again your slavish sycophancy to whatever Milton says betrays your common sense... in the most gun violent civilized nation on earth, a respectable fear of guns is entirely rational.

Indeed, if used improperly, just like the automobile, or a puddle of water, it can be dangerous. Life on Earth is inherently dangerous to those ignorant of the complexities of modern society, or self preservation.

Quote by: Sonart Or are you saying you' wouldn't feel any fear looking down the barrel of a gun?

I've discussed this here before. I have been shot ( 12 gauge shot gun ), I have been robbed at gunpoint, I have been shot at on at least three other occasions that I can recall.


I live in the ghetto, remember.

Quote by: Sonart Milton, Milton, Milton... your disingenuous need to create false premises just oozes out of you, doesn't it. I have stated on many occasions that guns served a valuable role in the first half of this country's existance, helping to tame the vast wilderness that once comprised 90% of what would become the U.S..

Yes, that's the dangerous reality present in classic philosphy that is absent in modern philosophy. I'm somehow just supoosed to trust everybody, and things will just turn out well.

Quote by: Sonart But certainly in the second half of the last century... with America's transition to a coast to coast urban/suburban industrialized society and the increased firepower of modern weapons... , yes, absolutely, firearms are the pet tiger that's grown far, far to big and dangerous to be kept any longer as a family pet.

That did little to alleviate the true dangers inherent in living in a modern society.

Quote by: Sonart Well, with 300 million well armed Americans making this the most murderous civilized nation on earth, a little idiot proofing is well called for.

Not when you classify me among the idiots.

Quote by: Sonart But then, you're the libertarian who conveniently forgets the incredible misery the excesses of unbridled capitalist 'liberty' has visited on Americans who weren't lucky enough to be Ayn Randian alpha dogs.

Well, I dispute that I am an alpha dog, though I did very well for myself. Mostly, people feared my big, scary, older brother ( not Osborn ), but to be sure, I stand my ground at all times. I have even been known to stand up for the little guy, and play the role of anti-bully on many occasions.


As far as the suffering goes, nobody knows more than my recent immigrant Russian Grandfather about the excesses, and not having access to those riches.


The truth is, that you think the suffering will be tolerable if shared, but I contend that that is no right to shared misery.

Quote by: Sonart Within the bounds of the Constitution, you do NOT have an individual right to own guns. Get over it.

I disagree, as do many others. ( Though I will admit that Stephen Colberts observation this evening that the Second Ammendment is the only amendment to include the word regulate, that you do have a tiny reality on which to base your opinion, I still think your completely wrong. )


The qualification was merely a qualification to convey that a "Free State" requires saccrifice, and diligence, and a means to defend that liberty.

Quote by: Sonart LOLOL!! YOU accuse ME of agenda driven behavior.

Well, what is my agenda? Do tell.

Quote by: Sonart Hey, when people I voted for ran the government, things were great.

For you personally. Not for me pally.

Quote by: Sonart When conservatives I didn't vote for ran Washington for the last 8 years, things went to sh!t. I'm sure Ron Paul would cheerfully take us all back to the 18th century, but alas, the world has moved into the 21st.

I won't dent that, except that inclusion of Ron Paul. He shares none of the policy makers views, despite the Republican moniker on his jacket.

Quote by: Sonart So there was no implication at all. Gosh, Milton, I'm so sorry I misjudged your intent.

It's valid.

Quote by: Sonart A lovely intention, Milton, except that it has accomplished the complete opposite, making Americans considerably less safe and our country a far more deadly, dangerous place to live.

Not a valid argument to us still, no matter how many times you make it.

Quote by: Sonart What will it take for you to see that? In theory, Communism was supposed to create a workers utopia, a benefit to all mankind... alas, it's grand intentions were overtaken by the gritty reality of human nature. Likewise your dreamy ideological good intentions have long since been overwhelmed by the grim reality of human nature.

So since human nature must be accounted for, and human nature is basically violent, I should relinquish my only real protection from others who would initiate force?


That's flawed reasoning there bucko.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So since human nature must be accounted for, and human nature is basically violent, I should relinquish my only real protection from others who would initiate force? That's flawed reasoning there bucko.

The flawed reasoning is believing that you are not advocating for an ever escalting arms race between you and the "initiators". If you have a shot gun and they have an uzi, you now need an uzi. As Sonart has pointed out, this country is swimming in guns. The more you buy, the more you need because everyone just participates in the same logic. It does not end in safety and equality for all, it ends with more and more people bleeding.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Again, you seem to want to punish all, law abiding citizens included, for "potential crime", and that is not how our justice system was set up to operate.

With that logic, I could argue that banning nuclear weapons, or small pox from the general public is meant to punish all law abiding citizens included for "potential crime," and that is not how our justice system was set up to operate.

How do you make the distinction?

Well, since you seem to realize that, why would you deny the true law abiding citizen the right to be a good guy with a gun? In effect, that's what you are agruing for, a state in which only criminals, and the government have guns.

Make it harder for criminals to get the guns

Plus, there's always a first time with gun crime. The world isn't split into good people = law abiding and bad people = criminals.

Finally, you want to create a world where anyone could kill another person within seconds if they so wished.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Indeed, if used improperly, just like the automobile, or a puddle of water, it can be dangerous. Life on Earth is inherently dangerous to those ignorant of the complexities of modern society, or self preservation.

You seem to remain confused on this point, Milton.

Unlike automobiles, laptop computers, fish sticks or mud puddles, if used properly... properly maintained, properly loaded with the proper ammunition, properly cocked, properly aimed and properly fired ...guns kill. It's the one, specific thing they were invented, designed and built to do, when used as advertised. They exist for no other reason.

I'm at a loss as to why you remain confused on this.

Life on Earth may be inherently dangerous, but firearms are deadly dangerous by design!

Quote by: Milton Not a valid argument to us still, no matter how many times you make it.

Since when is 2 plus 2 equals 4 not a valid argument. 2 - America has the most unregulated, privately owned guns per capita... plus 2 - America has the most gun deaths per capita... equals 4 - America is a more dangerous place because of all those guns. Simply denying it doesn't change the facts of it.

.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sonart . You seem to remain confused on this point, Milton. Unlike automobiles, laptop computers, fish sticks or mud puddles, if used properly... properly maintained, properly loaded with the proper ammunition, properly cocked, properly aimed and properly fired ...guns kill. It's the one, specific thing they were invented, designed and built to do, when used as advertised. They exist for no other reason. I'm at a loss as to why you remain confused on this. Life on Earth may be inherently dangerous, but firearms are deadly dangerous by design! Since when is 2 plus 2 equals 4 not a valid argument. 2 - America has the most unregulated, privately owned guns per capita... plus 2 - America has the most gun deaths per capita... equals 4 - America is a more dangerous place because of all those guns. Simply denying it doesn't change the facts of it. .

Sonart are you for total gun control? Meaning outlawing all firearms, or just handguns and automatic weapons?

I don't see it as unreasonable to allow non-concealled non-automatic rifles and shotguns, but make concealed weapons and automatic rifles illegal.

[Halofan48]

ideally for me, hand guns, rifles, and shotguns would be banned too. Yet this isn't going to happen anytime soon, so stricter gun control and no automatics and concealed weapons will have to do. Also, i don't think open carry is such a grand idea either.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Or are you saying you' wouldn't feel any fear looking down the barrel of a gun?

That's perfectly rational fear, but fearing moslty law abiding citizens each owning a few guns, especially when you too have means of defending yourself, starts to border on irrationality.

[Halofan48]

Fear of people with the ability to easily kill you from a distance at anytime doesn't seem to irrational.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart You seem to remain confused on this point, Milton. Unlike automobiles, laptop computers, fish sticks or mud puddles, if used properly... properly maintained, properly loaded with the proper ammunition, properly cocked, properly aimed and properly fired ...guns kill. It's the one, specific thing they were invented, designed and built to do, when used as advertised. They exist for no other reason. I'm at a loss as to why you remain confused on this. Life on Earth may be inherently dangerous, but firearms are deadly dangerous by design!

Show me where I ever denied that fact. You can't.

Quote by: Sonart Since when is 2 plus 2 equals 4 not a valid argument. 2 - America has the most unregulated, privately owned guns per capita... plus 2 - America has the most gun deaths per capita... equals 4 - America is a more dangerous place because of all those guns. Simply denying it doesn't change the facts of it.

Again, I have never disputed that statistics, that's why I ask the reason you keep posting them. Nobody here is denying your statistics, just the subjective opinion that the numbers validate your solution. Add twenty million more deaths, it still won't validate your logic.


Until you grasp the fact that inanimate objects do not commit crimes, you'll never make the connection.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GHook Sonart are you for total gun control? Meaning outlawing all firearms, or just handguns and automatic weapons?

I'm not necessarily for outlawing anything -- at least not right away -- as much as I'm for simply making gun ownership a privilege and perhaps a bit more difficult.

For example, we have to pass a test in order to be licensed to drive a car, and have to register any car we own every year . Why not with firearms?

And let's use common sense regarding what weapons are available to public purchase. Does anyone really need machine guns or military weapons -- even a stripped down copy -- for anything other than their own self-indulgence?

Or how many guns... is it unreasonable to put a limit on the number of weapons you can purchase? That's one of the primary methods criminals use to acquire guns... large volume 3rd party purchases, all perfectly legal.

Or that other major loophole, the Gun Show? Given the seriousness of the product, is there any real reason such flea markets of death need to exist, other than as convenient loopholes for getting around gun laws?

Ideally it would be lovely if Americans simply changed their attitudes regarding owning guns... as in they're dangerous, they get stolen, don't want 'em, don't need 'em.

Alas, based on the gun-addled monster -truckin' He-men I've known, I'm not counting on it, especially if the Bush Supreme Court overturns Miller.

Quote by: GHook I don't see it as unreasonable to allow non-concealed non-automatic rifles and shotguns, but make concealed weapons and automatic rifles illegal.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, G.

Quote by: God_Mercenary That's perfectly rational fear, but fearing mostly law abiding citizens each owning a few guns... starts to border on irrationality.

Thousands of murders are committed by perfectly law abiding citizens carrying perfectly legal firearms. Think about every high profile mass-shooting -- schools or 'Postal' incidents -- that have occurred in the U.S. in the past 20 years. All carried out by citizens who were law abiding right up to the moment they started squeezing off rounds into their victims. Or the Yoshihiro Hattori's, innocent people shot down because a perfectly law-abiding citizen got nervous and made a slight error in judgement.

That's the thing about firearms...all it takes to kill someone is the slightest pull on a trigger, that even a small child can perform. What other device makes death so incredibly easy?

Quote by: God_Mercenary ...especially when you too have means of defending yourself,...

In case you missed the point, Americans are awash in the means to defend themselves, yet still manage to murder each other at rates far above other civilized countries. Thus it's not odd that the states with the highest per household rates of gun ownership also are the states with the highest per capita rates of gun violence.

Gun ownership correlates to gun deaths -- CDC


.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Show me where I ever denied that fact. You can't.

Strawman. I've never said you denied it. You simply keep trying to make comparisons to things that aren't specifically designed to kill someone 20 yards away with just a slight pull on a trigger.