Gun and gun control

[Winter wind]

Far too vague. If one accident, that arises from mishandling or material failure can cause the loss of life to hundreds, thousands, millions, yes, the government has the right to regulate. No firearm, or individual arm has that capacity.

So its a matter of numbers now. So we ban anything that has the potential to kill XXX number of people in one go.
What about an RPG?
What about a landmine?
What about a grenade launcher?
What about a machine gun?
What about a fast firing gun?
What about any gun?

Where do we draw the line?

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: So its a matter of numbers now.

Isn't it always?

Is a single murderer different than a dictator who kills millions?

Much like a firecracker is not equal to a grenade, or a nuclear bomb.

Winterwind said: So we ban anything that has the potential to kill XXX number of people in one go.

In one mishandling, or mechanical failure, not by premeditation.


What about an RPG? Can an RPG kill millions from an accidental misfiring? No. Is an RPG a WMD? No.

What about a landmine? What about a grenade launcher? What about a machine gun? What about a fast firing gun? What about any gun?

None of those are WMD's.

[Winter wind]

To 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;

I'm not being sarcastic, but what does this mean for the militia. It is in Article one of the constitution. So this is part of the power of Congress.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: To 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;

When the nations government calls upon the militia (before we had a standing army), it clarified the Congress had the authority to draft training regimen, while the states retained the right to appoint officers, and had to enforce that congressional training regimen.

Even though we have a standing army, and national guard, we still have the right to a militia, though the government no longer recognizes this militia as an official arm of its defense, except in foreign invasion of our homeland, in which case you would see a national call to arms.

[Winter wind]

When the nations government calls upon the militia (before we had a standing army), it clarified the Congress had the authority to draft training regimen, while the states retained the right to appoint officers, and had to enforce that congressional training regimen.

If the states can employ leaders, doesn't that mean the militia is under the control of the government

None of those are WMD's.

What is your definition of WMD? (again not sarcastic, I just want the stance again.)

Is a single murderer different than a dictator who kills millions? Much like a firecracker is not equal to a grenade, or a nuclear bomb.

Where do you draw the line? What is too much? What's your magic number?

In one mishandling, or mechanical failure, not by premeditation. What about an RPG? Can an RPG kill millions from an accidental misfiring? No. Is an RPG a WMD? No.

So it's millions, is thousands ok? Or just ten?

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: If the states can employ leaders, doesn't that mean the militia is under the control of the government

Only in a time of war, does the state have this power. There is a good argument that only in a state of DEFENSIVE war, does the state have this power.

Winterwind said: What is your definition of WMD?

Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material. Weapons of Mass Destruction are also known by the abbreviation WMD.

Winterwind said: Where do you draw the line? What is too much? What's your magic number?

If a weapon is an individually operated weapon that is not WMD, it is legal. Therefore, a suitcase nuke would be illegal, but any individual weapons that are not WMD would be legal, with responsible use.

Just because an arm is legal, does not mean every use of that arm is legal. It is illegal to initiate force against another human being.

Winterwind said: So it's millions, is thousands ok? Or just ten?

Millions, and or thousands.

[Winter wind]

Only in a time of war, does the state have this power. There is a good argument that only in a state of DEFENSIVE war, does the state have this power.

Where does it say war (again, not sarcastic)?

Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material. Weapons of Mass Destruction are also known by the abbreviation WMD.

So, it's OK for the average citizen to have an RPG?
What about a heavy machine gun? God only knows how useful that is against the robbers and drug addicts.

Just because an arm is legal, does not mean every use of that arm is legal. It is illegal to initiate force against another human being.

yes, but by the time you "initiate", someone is already dead.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Even though we have a standing army, and national guard, we still have the right to a militia, though the government no longer recognizes this militia as an official arm of its defense, except in foreign invasion of our homeland, in which case you would see a national call to arms.

According to whom?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If a weapon is an individually operated weapon that is not WMD, it is legal. Therefore, a suitcase nuke would be illegal, but any individual weapons that are not WMD would be legal, with responsible use.

So what would be considered the responsible, private use of a claymore mine? An anti-tank mine? A daisy-cutter Blu-82? A TOW missile?

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: Where does it say war (again, not sarcastic)?

One must understand that when the Constitution was written, ratified and adopted, there was no standing army, and we were a nation of DEFENSIVE war, requiring the CONGRESS to declare war, and calling forth the militia.

From Article 1, Section 8: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

From Article 2, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

BOR, 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The War Powers and Emergency Act, unconstitutionally stripped Congress of their control over War Powers.

Winterwind said: So, it's OK for the average citizen to have an RPG?

Yes, if they meet specific ownership requirements (today).

Winterwind said: What about a heavy machine gun? God only knows how useful that is against the robbers and drug addicts.

The right to bear arms is not only a defense against crime, but against tyrannical government, whether it be foreign government, or domestic government.

Don't make the false assumption that the only purpose to keep and bear arms is to defend against individual criminals.

Winterwind said: yes, but by the time you "initiate", someone is already dead.

False claim, as well as unsupported.

Sonart said: bla bla bla....

I won't be wasting time debating you on this issue Sonart.

[Winter wind]

One must understand that when the Constitution was written, ratified and adopted, there was no standing army, and we were a nation of DEFENSIVE war, requiring the CONGRESS to declare war, and calling forth the militia.

I don't care. where in the constitution does it say that. Because I could just say in return, that they were thinking of spreading their freedoms around the world by force. I don't really think that, but it could be true for all I know.

The War Powers and Emergency Act, unconstitutionally stripped Congress of their control over War Powers.

I've asked you about this before. Which war powers and emergency act?

Yes, if they meet specific ownership requirements (today).

This is going to be fun.
RPGs for citizens? One, why do I need a backround check to see if I'm crazy, wanting the RPG in the first place is a good heads up.

Second, why does someone need an RPG except to blow things up? I don't think we should make it easier for a citizen to fire explosives into buildings on a whim.

Third I don't think the sales of RPG's should be made in America, simply because it makes it so much easier to get one and carry it around (it would be legal!). An RPG's destructive power out weighs it's usefulness in my opinion.

Why do you think the RPG should be legal?

False claim, as well as unsupported.

You said it is illegal to use force against a person. If I murder someone, I go to jail. My point was, by the time I murder someone, someone is dead. The laws don't bring back the person, only prevention can do that. This doesn't need to be supported, this is common sense, unless you can find a law that brings the dead back to life.
For me, gun control is like washing your hands before eating, it makes it harder to get sick.

The right to bear arms is not only a defense against crime, but against tyrannical government, whether it be foreign government, or domestic government. Don't make the false assumption that the only purpose to keep and bear arms is to defend against individual criminals.

God, don't make the same mistake millions of insurgents make all the time. They rarely win against tyrannical government with the guns they have, and the ones that do have a generally unstable government.The Revolution wasn't made possible because we were rebelling with our guns, it was because the French helped out.

Normally, what happens when a group beats tyranny with violence, the most violent people keep the power.

Example? Africa's freedom fighters, Mexican revolution after revolution. Chinese revolution. French revolution. Etc.

In these days, the most effective way to beat the crap out of a tyrannical government is the Martin Luther King Jr way. With mass media, and humanitarian groups, it is so much better to ignore the gun and go for peaceful protests.

[Muser]

Quote by: Winter wind I've asked you about this before. Which war powers and emergency act?

This article provides a good synopsis.

Congressional concern about Presidential use of armed forces without congressional authorization intensified after the Korean conflict. During the Vietnam war, Congress searched for a way to assert authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the armed forces be utilized in circumstances that might lead to hostilities. On November 7, 1973, it passed the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President Nixon. The main purpose of the Resolution was to establish procedures for both branches to share in decisions that might get the United States involved in war. The drafters sought to circumscribe the President's authority to use armed forces abroad in hostilities or potential hostilities without a declaration of war or other congressional authorization, yet provide enough flexibility to permit him to respond to attack or other emergencies. The record of the War Powers Resolution since its enactment has been mixed, and after 30 years it remains controversial. Some Members of Congress believe the Resolution has on some occasions served as a restraint on the use of armed forces by Presidents, provided a mode of communication, and given Congress a vehicle for asserting its war powers. Others have sought to amend the Resolution because they believe it has failed to assure a congressional voice in committing U.S. troops to potential conflicts abroad. Others in Congress, along with executive branch officials, contend that the President needs more flexibility in the conduct of foreign policy and that the time limitation in the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and impractical. Some have argued for its repeal.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: I don't care. where in the constitution does it say that. Because I could just say in return, that they were thinking of spreading their freedoms around the world by force.

And you would be proven wrong by simply reading the WRITINGS OF THE FOREFATHERS who discussed at length the purposes and wording of the Constitution and later, the BOR.

You seem to think context has no bearing on the facts, and you couldn't be more wrong.

If you sincerely want the facts, LEARN by using your search engine or buying the books written by the forefathers, or books that were compiled on their personal writings of the times the texts were written, adopted and ratified.

Winterwind said: I don't really think that, but it could be true for all I know.

So change what you know, by learning the facts, reading about the surrounding context, and reading the debates and discussions that took place.

Winterwind said: I've asked you about this before. Which war powers and emergency act?

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly.

War and Emergency Powers Act:
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973

War Powers Act - Congresspedia

Winterwind said: Why do you think the RPG should be legal?

Your talking in circles.

I have already stated for defense of the individuals and free-states should the nations government turn against its own people using force.

Militias have the right to own individual defense arms such as you speak of, as well as artillery batteries, etc.

You seem to think this is a "simple matter", when it clearly is not. All states have different gun laws to some extent, but almost all states have something similar to THIS wording in their constitution:

This is from my state of Ohio's Constitution:

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)

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

Every state has their own Constitution, but almost all recognize the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and the peoples right to abolish government, should they deem it in their best intrest. (usually if justice can't be obtained through the existing government, or if force is used unjustly against the people.)

Winterwind said: You said it is illegal to use force against a person.

No, I said it was illegal to INITIATE force against someone.

Do you understand the difference?

Winterwind said: If I murder someone, I go to jail. My point was, by the time I murder someone, someone is dead.

Yes, that is because life is objective, and concrete. You either are alive, or you are dead.

However, crime is either committed, or it is not. You can't prosecute people UNTIL a crime is committed, unless you stop that crime IN THE ACT. An armed individual has an ability to possibly stop that crime in the act peacefully (by deterring the would be criminal with the threat of deadly force) or non-peacefully (if the criminal refuses to cease and desist, and continues unjust aggression, by using deadly force) to stop them.

In the United States, you are assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Winterwind said: The laws don't bring back the person, only prevention can do that.

Nobody claimed it did bring people back. Prevention is a viable tool, but as with all tools, it is limited to the scope of the methods available for prevention.

Winterwind said: For me, gun control is like washing your hands before eating, it makes it harder to get sick.

Thats a simple analogy, for a person who only demands a simple answer to a complex issue. Its also devoid of the facts of AMERICAN law, individual rights and objective evidence.

Winterwind said: God, don't make the same mistake millions of insurgents make all the time. They rarely win against tyrannical government with the guns they have, and the ones that do have a generally unstable government.The Revolution wasn't made possible because we were rebelling with our guns, it was because the French helped out. Normally, what happens when a group beats tyranny with violence, the most violent people keep the power. Example? Africa's freedom fighters, Mexican revolution after revolution. Chinese revolution. French revolution. Etc. In these days, the most effective way to beat the crap out of a tyrannical government is the Martin Luther King Jr way. With mass media, and humanitarian groups, it is so much better to ignore the gun and go for peaceful protests.

People don't revolt because they "think it would be groovy".
People revolt because they would rather risk death or die in the fight against slavery of the mind and body, than succumb to it.

I would rather die in the fight, no matter how grotesque, bloody or torturous, than live as a slave, which is exactly what you would be if you allowed them to revolk your rights, which aren't theirs to revolk. (which is why they use force to accomplish the goal)

The only beneficient ends of man are achieved by means that don't require the use of force, but that does not mean you should allow those who do operate by force rule the day, the world, or your life. In fact, it argues quite contrary to the point.

You have the right to ignore the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but I have the right, and I invoke and reserve ALL of my rights until death do us part.

[Winter wind]

Thank you muser.

Quote by: OFE The War Powers and Emergency Act, unconstitutionally stripped Congress of their control over War Powers.

Which is bad and has only resulted in disaster.
but it begs two questions. If Congress losses power, how on earth did it get approved in the first place?
Second off, if Congress hated the war actions enough, why hasn't said law been repealed? Congress would probably have sided with the president anyway if the law is still there.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: If Congress losses power, how on earth did it get approved in the first place?

Corruption, money, bi-partisan agreement that it would be more profitable to both of their parties, and more beneficial to the corrupt people they nominate if they work together to control and steer the system.

POWER

I don't want to seem rude here Winterwind, but you seem pretty naieve of government.

Winterwind said: Second off, if Congress hated the war actions enough, why hasn't said law been repealed?

157 year MONOPOLY ON POWER between the same two parties who enacted it, and seeded the seats of power to pass it.

[Winter wind]

You seem to think context has no bearing on the facts, and you couldn't be more wrong.

Not any bearing of facts, just not law.
Plus, my true argument is that the founding fathers would not have been looking 200 plus years into the future and thinking "my God! we become a superpower good grief!" so it isn't fair to say they would oppose us helping other countries if they ask for the help, because they probably never thought that the United States would ever face that problem. That is my context.

No, I said it was illegal to INITIATE force against someone. Do you understand the difference?

What the hell difference does it make meaning wise? Initiate just means to start. And the start of force would be putting a gun to a person's head and pulling the trigger. What difference does it make?

Thats a simple analogy, for a person who only demands a simple answer to a complex issue. Its also devoid of the facts of AMERICAN law, individual rights and objective evidence.

American law talks about a state owned militia. You added on "only in defensive war" Somewhere and said it was context. I couldn't find it in the constitution. So American law is on my side about gun control. My idea of individual rights is that if owning WMD isn't a personal right, why are guns. I know you said because of the number of people that would be killed, but thats subjective. It comes down to where you think danger out weights usefulness. Where you peg yours and I peg mine is different, hence the different interpretation of individual rights. As for objective evidence, well it was an apology to make you see my thinking of gun control as preventative law enforcement.It doesn't make perfect objective sense, but I wanted to share my thoughts in a see-able way.

As for objective evidence, I've presented it already. The Homicide vs. justifiable gun deaths.

People don't revolt because they "think it would be groovy". People revolt because they would rather risk death or die in the fight against slavery of the mind and body, than succumb to it.

Since most of the closing is subjective. This is all I'm going to quote.
People don't revolt because it is groovy, they revolt because they are oppressed and are looking for a way out, some of the time.

The problem is, it isn't the guns of tyrannical government you have to worry about. If thats the problem, I'm hitching town. Not sticking around. (I'm not a slave if I haul ass).

Logically, it is much better to bicker with the government when you think it is too tyrannical and if other's agree, the American government changes accordingly. And if it ever gets so bad, then it isn't America any more, so just leave.

As a right, the gun isn't one. The gun is a tool, just a jumble of clock work that is meant to kill a person. If other's right to life or liberty is endangered by the gun. Then it is fair to get rid of it. If the life or liberty is protected by the gun. Then fine, but the gun isn't a de facto right. Just a tool.

[Winter wind]

Corruption, money, bi-partisan agreement that it would be more profitable to both of their parties, and more beneficial to the corrupt people they nominate if they work together to control and steer the system. POWER I don't want to seem rude here Winterwind, but you seem pretty naieve of government.

My point is, what difference would it make if it were law or not. "Corruption, money, bi-partisan agreements" would be just as good during a war. Just get congress to check off and declare war.

Im not naive of government, I'm just asking to obvious question of why laminate it for the public to admonish, unless there was another reason.

[Osborn F Enready]

We can agree to disagree then winterwind, as I see no point in debating you if you aren't willing to acknowledge context.

That would be pointless.

[Winter wind]

We can agree to disagree then winterwind, as I see no point in debating you if you aren't willing to acknowledge context.

I gave my context and you gave yours.
This is the best time to debate contexts.
My context is:

Plus, my true argument is that the founding fathers would not have been looking 200 plus years into the future and thinking "my God! we become a superpower good grief!" so it isn't fair to say they would oppose us helping other countries if they ask for the help, because they probably never thought that the United States would ever face that problem. That is my context.

My context is that in 200 years, things change.

[Osborn F Enready]

My context is what I live or die by, so you decide.

I was born with inherant rights, and I won't be giving them up.

The idea of individual rights have existed in this nation for 200 + years, and many of us I am sure would risk life to ensure the next 50, 100 or 200 years can enjoy the same rights.

People just don't get it.