| |
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
 |  Posted: 2/28/2013 6:48:53 AM
Whenever a solution is suggested, there's a cacophony of voices coming from the pro-gun side, asserting 'that won't work'. Nothing is going to stop the bloodshed completely, but I'd like it better if it went from a river to a stream. that the rate of armed intruders shooting homeowners is negligible compared to the number of guns that were legally purchased, then found their The easy access to guns by law abiding citizens is one of the biggest reasons criminals have them...but nobody on the pro-gun side ever takes responsibility for that. The NRA would have us believe that all those illegal guns just appear in the hands of criminals....then they demand the right to buy more guns to combat the criminal element.
Maybe it's time that gun owners accepted some restrictions, quit claiming that if gun ownership is restricted in anyway, the 2nd Amendment is going to implode. Admit way into the hands of criminals....or take responsibility for the river of blood that is shed when people shoot each other....but something has to give.
The louder y'all object, and the more offensive the NRA gets with their ads, the more I believe y'all don't give a damn about the number of gun deaths in this country....and that includes gang bangers who kill each other....they're still someone's son, brother, husband, best friend. Every gun death is mourned by someone. This is becoming more about who's going to win the argument than it is about reducing gun violence.
But I-95, can't you see that yes, illegal guns concern us, senseless gun deaths concern us. But Its not our FAULT that these things happen, and it's not our responsibility to curtail and give up our constitutionally protected rights to stop these things from happening?
Are you honestly saying that someone who legally and responsibly owns a gun, keeps it in their home with their doors locked, is at if someone breaks into their home (an illegal act, is it not?) and steals that gun and uses it in ANOTHER crime? I just can not wrap my head around that argument, no matter how many times I hear it.
That' is the flaw in the pro-gun control movement. It's not about controlling the GUNS. It's about controlling the PEOPLE. And until SOCIETY decides to change and embrace morality that has been eschewed as old fashioned, and to realize that government welfare has bred the gang and drug and criminal culture, controlling the GUNS will have no effect. People will still choose the criminal life, people will still kill others and themselves.
Honestly, this society has become so enamored with political correctness and the sham of "victim classes", that it has somehow become easier to strip all American's of their right to bear arms, than to address the REAL issues of broken families, immorality, poverty bred by dependence on government, glorified violence for profit, and total lack of personal responsibility that is perpetuated by people who believe it's MY fault because a criminal steals my gun and uses it in an illegal way.
Instead of trying to take away MY rights in order to curb your river of blood, why don't you (general you, not yelling at you directly, 95) try taking a look at what else you could be doing to promote a different culture in our society. Try analyzing exactly how those big government handouts in the war on poverty have really worked, and ask yourself if there is a better way.
Ask yourself why we are so shocked when a kid who has spent his teen years playing violent video games and seeing violent movies goes off the deep end and kills with a gun over sneakers...but our only inclination is to go after all the other gun owners instead of going after the movie and video game industries? If you are going to take away MY rights to own my gun because one kid freaks out...then be fair and take away everyones rights to play and watch those games and movies as well.
We have argued this ad naseum...gun owners have accepted thousands of restrictions on ownership already, with promises that every law that is passed would stop the violence. IT HAS NOT. Background checks were instituted because politicians assured us that it would definately cut down on guns "finding their way" into the wrong hands. IT HAS NOT. We were assured that these checks would never ever lead to a national registry (silly gun owners, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Trust us.) Well, the slope is getting steeper and slipperier every single day it seems as the call for a national registry is growing louder and louder.
It's starting to remind me of little kids fighting over toys, screaming 'it's mine, it's mine', mom saying 'no, you have to share'. If the screaming child refuses to budge, won't accept a compromise, mom says 'fine, you wanna be like that, I'm taking all your toys away until you learn to be more reasonable'.
But we are not fighting over toys. Guns are a tool, a right, and a fundamental cornerstone of our constitutional republic. I submit that American's right to bear arms is more important and more ingrained than our right to vote. Honestly, sometimes I think I would like to see the right to vote go back to being restricted to property and business owners. I think letting people who are dependent on government handouts vote is insane. But that isnt going to happen, is it? Hell, as left said, liberals won't even let us ask for an ID to exercise the right to vote, yet voting has the ability to be far more dangerous to the general welfare than guns do. |
 
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,079
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 2/28/2013 6:52:28 AM
The second amendment guarantees the right to own a weapon, it doesn't guarantee it would be cheap.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Excessive monetary demands to allow citizens a right that has been already granted is infringement. Our Founding Fathers never intended the 2nd Amendment only apply to those rich enough to afford it. It was meant for all law-abiding citizens. Should we only give freedom of religion to those who give 10% tithe to their local place of worship? Should we go back to poll taxes for citizens to have the right to vote? Gun ownership is not like car ownership. Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution and is meant for ALL law-abiding citizens to have. And extra costly regulations simply infringe on citizens' rights that are protected by the Constitution. Besides, as I've repeatedly noted, the insurance idea might sound reasonable in theory, but in reality is unenforceable and simply would be another gun control law that does nothing to address the real issues behind gun violence. Yet another attempt to punish law-abiding citizens for simply exercising their Constitutional right.
I don't claim to speak for you, I merely know what reaction of the MAJORITY of lawful gun owners in this country think of this type of empty regulation.
I find it quite telling that certain peas have nothing valuable to offer the discussion besides trying to make demands and personal attacks on those they disagree with. | |
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| Posted: 2/28/2013 7:08:45 AM
I'm interested in hearing why you think insuring against potential misuse is a violation of the second amendment. I'm also not comfortable with you speaking for all gun owners, I for one wouldn't have a problem complying with such a law. The second amendment guarantees the right to own a weapon, it doesn't guarantee it would be cheap.
The 15th amendment guarantees the right to vote. Actually, it prohibits federal or state governments from prohibiting the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous conditions of servitude". It doesn't guarantee that you will never have to prove your identity or current condition of citizenship in order to exercise that right. So you will 100%n support universal voter ID laws, right?
So a few people might have to jump through some hoops (like take a bus and stand in line, and maybe pay $25 or so) to get an ID...but if the right to vote is so important to them, they will gladly do all that so that we can maintain the integrity of our elections. Afterall, the 15th amendment guarantees you the right to vote, but it doesn't guarantee that it has to be easy for you.
The right to privacy is used to guarantee your right to an abortion. But it doesn't guarantee that it will be cheap, so it's okay to withdraw all tax dollars from Planned Parenthood, right?
See, only once, ONCE, in our entire constitution, are the words "Shall not be infringed" used. In the SECOND amendment. I think that assures us that the Founders valued this right and knew it's importance. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - powerful words. |
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 2/28/2013 7:26:18 AM
So you will 100%n support universal voter ID laws, right?
yes, I support a states right to have ID required in order to vote.
So a few people might have to jump through some hoops (like take a bus and stand in line, and maybe pay $25 or so) to get an ID...but if the right to vote is so important to them, they will gladly do all that so that we can maintain the integrity of our elections. Afterall, the 15th amendment guarantees you the right to vote, but it doesn't guarantee that it has to be easy for you.
The 24th Amendment requires that there not be a poll tax in order to vote, I support a free ID system for those states that require a voter ID.
The right to privacy is used to guarantee your right to an abortion. But it doesn't guarantee that it will be cheap, so it's okay to withdraw all tax dollars from Planned Parenthood, right?
Yep, we are way over budget and spending, everyone has to give a little.
See, only once, ONCE, in our entire constitution, are the words "Shall not be infringed" used. In the SECOND amendment. I think that assures us that the Founders valued this right and knew it's importance. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - powerful words.
It sucks that you made an assumption about how I would answer your questions in order to beat me over the head with the second amendment, made you look a little irrational don't you think.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Excessive monetary demands to allow citizens a right that has been already granted is infringement.
Define excessive. Is the cost of a gun excessive? How about the cost of ammunition? | |
|
*Erin
triathlon pea
PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,470
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne
| Posted: 2/28/2013 7:43:54 AM
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Excessive monetary demands to allow citizens a right that has been already granted is infringement.
So. Free guns for everyone, then?
Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement. |
|
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,900
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
 | Posted: 2/28/2013 8:00:45 AM
Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement.
You know what also needs to be defined? (Okay, I'll go with you know what else needs to not be completely ignored?)
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"
|
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,561
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
 | Posted: 2/28/2013 8:01:56 AM
The right to privacy is used to guarantee your right to an abortion. But it doesn't guarantee that it will be cheap, so it's okay to withdraw all tax dollars from Planned Parenthood, right?
Your argument here is flawed. Tax dollars do support Planned Parenthood, but not abortions performed there. Federal funds have not been used at PP for abortion services in 36 years. So the right to privacy as it applies to abortion is sound. No, it doesn't have to be cheap, but withdrawing tax dollars from PP by trying to tie it to abortions is not valid. | |
|
*Erin
triathlon pea
PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,470
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne
| Posted: 2/28/2013 8:06:23 AM
Good point, Sarah. Why is that part always ignored? |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,561
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 2/28/2013 8:21:15 AM
But I-95, can't you see that yes, illegal guns concern us, senseless gun deaths concern us. But Its not our FAULT that these things happen, and it's not our responsibility to curtail and give up our constitutionally protected rights to stop these things from happening?
Are you honestly saying that someone who legally and responsibly owns a gun, keeps it in their home with their doors locked, is at if someone breaks into their home (an illegal act, is it not?) and steals that gun and uses it in ANOTHER crime? I just can not wrap my head around that argument, no matter how many times I hear it.
Ummm, yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm saying . A lot of those guns manage to get into the hands of criminals because the gun owner did not have them adequately secured. And I put myself into that guilty group. I've mentioned before that our house was robbed, during the day, nobody home or hurt, but the thieves picked up the locked gun case and left with it along with the 8 guns inside. In hindsight, it should have been bolted to the floor, or wall, but it wasn't. That's on us (well, DH since they were his guns!!) There is not a week goes by that I don't wonder whether any of those lethal weapons has been used to take a life. Our guns were more secure than those kept in most homes I've been in. As far as responsibility goes, I do feel responsible for our part in adding to the weapons cache of a criminal. The experience was enough to convince me that we do not need guns in our house.
That' is the flaw in the pro-gun control movement. It's not about controlling the GUNS. It's about controlling the PEOPLE.
Of COURSE it's about controlling people. Every law we have is about controlling people. That's what the laws do, they control people when they can't control themselves.
(in order for this to not grow to epic length, I'm going to continue in a separate post) | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,561
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 2/28/2013 8:57:44 AM
Instead of trying to take away MY rights in order to curb your river of blood, why don't you (general you, not yelling at you directly, 95) try taking a look at what else you could be doing to promote a different culture in our society. Try analyzing exactly how those big government handouts in the war on poverty have really worked, and ask yourself if there is a better way.
If you are going to take away MY rights to own my gun because one kid freaks out...then be fair and take away everyones rights to play and watch those games and movies as well.
Oh how I wish I could actually influence a different culture. I would MUCH rather our tax dollars be spent on education, after school programs to keep kids off the streets, and a whole bunch of other programs that support making a citizen employable, literate, and have a sense of self worth. Our current welfare system is designed for failure, but a lot of the same people who demand their gun rights, are the same people who yell the loudest about, and object to, almost any social program. Every time I think about how many tax dollars we poured into two unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that money we could have given the most underprivileged citizens a real chance at success. I know we'd still have a certain segment who don't want to be part of society, but given the right tools, a huge number would choose to be righteous citizens.
I'm not trying to take away your right to own a gun. I want to keep my right to own one too.
We have argued this ad naseum...gun owners have accepted thousands of restrictions on ownership already, with promises that every law that is passed would stop the violence. IT HAS NOT. Background checks were instituted because politicians assured us that it would definately cut down on guns "finding their way" into the wrong hands. IT HAS NOT. We were assured that these checks would never ever lead to a national registry (silly gun owners, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Trust us.) Well, the slope is getting steeper and slipperier every single day it seems as the call for a national registry is growing louder and louder.
I agree that there are tons of laws on the books that are not enforced. I completely support a taking a cold hard look at what's already in place before we start adding new laws. I really do think State Governments need to clean up their own backyards before inviting the Feds to do it for them. If States would take the 'Joe Arpaio approach' and apply it to enforcing gun laws, or the lack thereof, we wouldn't need the Feds to run around trying to appease everyone, and being completely ineffectual. (NB: I don't much like the way Sheriff Arpaio does things, but at least he does something, with no apologies)
But we are not fighting over toys.
No, we're not, but we (both sides of the debate) are behaving like irrational toddlers fighting over toys. Instead of welcoming rational debate, both sides are digging in deeper, getting more frustrated until we're both entrenched in an all or nothing fight...and like the mom in my analogy, you run the risk of the Feds stepping in and taking it all away.
Hell, as left said, liberals won't even let us ask for an ID to exercise the right to vote, yet voting has the ability to be far more dangerous to the general welfare than guns do.
Liberals?? You really must start saying 'some Liberals', so as not to tar us all with the same brush. Personally I support voter ID. If you want to vote, get off your ass and go get an ID. If you're too poor to pay the $3 for a State ID (or whatever your State charges) then I'm more than happy for the State to waive the fee. After reading some of the ignorant cr*p people post to Facebook, I'm ready to require an IQ test before you're allowed to vote!!! | |
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 2/28/2013 10:47:41 AM
Ummm, yeah, I think exactly what I'm saying that. A lot of those guns manage to get into the hands of criminals because the gun owner did not have them adequately secured. And I put myself into that guilty group. I've mentioned before that our house was robbed, during the day, nobody home or hurt, but the thieves picked up the locked gun case and left with it along with the 8 guns inside. In hindsight, it should have been bolted to the floor, or wall, but it wasn't. That's on us (well, DH since they were his guns!!) There is not a week goes by that I don't wonder whether any of those lethal weapons has been used to take a life. Our guns were more secure than those kept in most homes I've been in. As far as responsibility goes, I do feel responsible for our part in adding to the weapons cache of a criminal. The experience was enough to convince me that we do not need guns in our house.
So when your stolen guns turn up as used in a crime, you don't mind taking responsibility for "your part" in those guns ending up being used in a shooting death or 2-3 and being charged s few thousand dollars x2-3 and spending a year in jail x 2-3 because you didn't bolt the locked gun case in your locked house to the floor?
| |
|
MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?
PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 13,697
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.
| Posted: 2/28/2013 10:51:45 AM
So. Free guns for everyone, then?
Seems to work in Switzerland.  |
|
|
*Erin
triathlon pea
PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,470
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne
| Posted: 2/28/2013 12:11:51 PM
Great, so you're all for the other parts of Swiss gun law like mandatory military service, gun training courses, and registered ammunition? Also, carrying a concealed weapon is not allowed without a permit, but unlike here you'd need a bona fide reason to get a permit. "I want one" wouldn't be a good enough reason. |
|
|
MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?
PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 13,697
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.
| Posted: 2/28/2013 12:14:00 PM
I'm all for responsibility in gun ownership including required training, storing, etc. |
|
|
*Erin
triathlon pea
PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,470
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne
| Posted: 2/28/2013 12:17:01 PM
And mandatory military service until age 50 or so? I kind of think the "patriots" would balk at that one.
|
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,561
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 2/28/2013 12:28:52 PM
So when your stolen guns turn up as used in a crime, you don't mind taking responsibility for "your part" in those guns ending up being used in a shooting death or 2-3 and being charged s few thousand dollars x2-3 and spending a year in jail x 2-3 because you didn't bolt the locked gun case in your locked house to the floor?
No, I don't mind taking responsibility for some part of that. We were remiss in not securing that cabinet, even though it never X'ed my mind that someone would pick the whole thing up (not a one man job by any means) Maybe they should come with warning labels??
I would be more horrified by the fact a weapon I was responsible for securing had been used in a crime, than I would be about paying a fine for the transgression. Since the guns were secured in a locked gun cabinet, I don't think I should go to jail over it.
People are held responsible for the crimes of others all the time. Let's say you are riding around town with your BFF, she asks you to stop so she can get a coke at the gas station. You stop, she gets out, goes in, robs the place and shoots the owner dead. In some States you are considered as responsible for his death as the person who pulled the trigger. There are thousands of people sitting in jail who didn't commit the crime themselves, but because they transported the criminal to the scene, or were somehow involved in felony act which resulted in a homicide, even if they had no clue anyone was going to get killed.
As far as I'm concerned a lax gun owner, whose weapons are stolen, does bear some responsibility for their actions. | |
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 2/28/2013 1:07:01 PM
How funny that as I'm getting ready to read your reply the phone rings. On the caller ID: NRA  | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
 | Posted: 2/28/2013 1:10:44 PM
So. Free guns for everyone, then?
Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement.
There will be free guns available only when the government takes over this industry.
I'm not for that and no one I know is for that.
Look at the health insurance requirements and how well they work before trying to push firearm insurance as a panacea for all the wrongs done by criminals with guns.
It's an infringement on the 2nd Amendment because at least at this point in time, firearm insurance is completely above our ability to make and keep available to those who would be required to have it. That is the very definition of infringement - requiring someone to buy something that is not available.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 2/28/2013 1:22:46 PM
I95 - I know this tears at you. It would tear at me too.
But.... you are not responsible for the criminal actions of others. If people broke into your home and carried out a heavy gun safe along with the 8 guns inside, it's ridiculous to assume that just bolting it to the wall or floor would have stopped them from getting the weapons.
If boltheads were inside the safe - and they'd be pretty easy to undo if they were outside - then what's to stop them from cutting that part of the wall or floor out with a saw and still taking the whole caboodle?
You need to forgive yourself at some point. {{{hugs}}}
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 2/28/2013 1:35:08 PM
I would be about paying a fine for the transgression. ...I don't think I should go to jail over it.
I don't think you get to choose the sentence they impose.
Let's say you are riding around town with your BFF, she asks you to stop so she can get a coke at the gas station. You stop, she gets out, goes in, robs the place and shoots the owner dead. In some States you are considered as responsible for his death as the person who pulled the trigger. There are thousands of people sitting in jail who didn't commit the crime themselves, but because they transported the criminal to the scene, or were somehow involved in felony act which resulted in a homicide, even if they had no clue anyone was going to get killed.
"or were somehow involved in felony act" are your keywords. Does it happen? Yes but, there's a lot more to a conviction than driving someone and being clueless about what is going to take place and remaining clueless to what has taken place. You've left a lot out and have reduced it to the ridiculous to make your point and it doesn't hold up in actual real life scenarios.
As far as I'm concerned a lack gun owner, whose weapons are stolen, does bear some responsibility for their actions.
So when will Obama be in jail for his role in Fast & Furious which ultimately allowed illegal aliens to kill border patrol agents?
| |
|
blondiek237
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 70,239
February 2003
Posts: 2,855
Layouts: 8
Loc: Massachusetts
| Posted: 2/28/2013 2:53:41 PM
Enough, that exact situation happened to someone I knew in high school. He caught a ride from Mass to Fla and the driver stopped and went into a house and killed someone, yes he was arrested but because he didn't know what happened he was not tried | |
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 2/28/2013 3:05:06 PM
yes he was arrested but because he didn't know what happened he was not tried
Exactly. 
| |
|
freecharlie
Is the pool open yet?
PeaNut 109,127
September 2003
Posts: 19,253
Layouts: 4
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/28/2013 3:13:05 PM
Gun makers should not be held accountable. Perople who sell guns illegally should be held accountable. People who break the laws using guns should be held accountable.
I am actually on the opposite end of the spectrum from Nightowl:
I support universal background checks, but I don't know exactly how that is going to work. I don't think those who are passing the law are sure how it will work either.
I do believe that people buying guns should have to pay for the background check.
I support the law against high capicity magazines. |
| Tribbey: I believe, as long as Justice Dreifort is intolerant toward gays, lesbians, blacks, unions, women, poor people, and the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments, I will remain intolerant toward him! [to Ainsley] Nice meeting you | |
|
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,061
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 2/28/2013 3:13:25 PM
Honestly, sometimes I think I would like to see the right to vote go back to being restricted to property and business owners. I think letting people who are dependent on government handouts vote is insane. But that isnt going to happen, is it?
You amaze me sometimes. What makes you think you should be included as someone who should be allowed to vote? What a stupid elitist you are.
| |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,079
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/28/2013 3:29:52 PM
So. Free guns for everyone, then?
Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement.
No, I certainly don't advocate for the government providing free guns for anyone. And that was not the intention of the 2nd Amendment, but congratulations on your ability to twist words. 
I tend to go by what the Founding Fathers would have interpreted as "infringement" and since they were very much against the federal government interfering in any way with individuals' rights, I take that to mean the 2nd Amendment is not something they ever intended the Federal Government to regulate AT ALL. States? Absolutely. But not the Federal Government itself. Which brings me to answer the next question:
You know what also needs to be defined? (Okay, I'll go with you know what else needs to not be completely ignored?)
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"
This first part has not been ignored by me, and I have gone into detail about what I think was intended by this statement in the Bill of Rights according to our historic roots and what James Madison had written in this Federalist Papers, but I didn't quote it on this thread simply because this part of the Amendment is not the part in question with this thread topic. But now that it has been brought up, I will offer my take on it. The Founding Fathers intended each state to have a ready trained citizen's militia for the purpose of keeping the government in check. The state militias were to be offered up to the Federal Government in times of war against other nations, but could be used by the state governments to also keep the Federal Government from overstepping its purposefully limited powers over the states.
So to sum it up, from what I know of history and what was written and recorded surrounding the Constitutional Convention and Ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, The Founding Fathers intended each state have a well trained and regulated citizens' militia to keep the Federal Government in check and protect the citizens of each state and that citizens have the individual right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed upon by the Federal Government.
Sadly, the Federal Government has already infringed upon the state's right to keep a well trained militia that is outside of the authority of the Federal Government. (Except I do think California has a separate militia that does not answer to the Federal Government, but I'm not 100% clear on the way they have it set up.) | |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,789
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/28/2013 4:20:53 PM
I support universal background checks, but I don't know exactly how that is going to work. I don't think those who are passing the law are sure how it will work either.
Then why on earth would you support such a bill? If you don't know how it's going to work, you don't know how it's going to be enforced. Why would you pass a law that no one knows how it will work, or if it will work? What exactly are we trying to do with this law? Will it have the intended result? If we don't know how it is going to work, how will we know if it will have the intended result (if we even know what that is)? How many lives do we reasonably expect it to save based on research?
See, I think we don't have the luxury to pass things simply because they sound good, but we really don't understand them, and we don't have the money to pass things we don't even understand, and don't know how to enforce them or how much it will cost to enforce, and can't explain exactly what problem it solves and show that such a problem is a significant problem. We're spinning our wheels "doing something" "caring about violence" without a clue what we're doing, no way to enforce it, and no understanding of what problem it is to solve or way to measure if it's even effective. That's not good government. That's a waste and a mockery of what government should be.
|
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
freecharlie
Is the pool open yet?
PeaNut 109,127
September 2003
Posts: 19,253
Layouts: 4
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/28/2013 4:24:40 PM
Then why on earth would you support such a bill? If you don't know how it's going to work, you don't know how it's going to be enforced. Why would you pass a law that no one knows how it will work, or if it will work
Perhaps I should have clarified. I support the idea of universal background checks,but I don't know how it would be enforced and while I philosophically agree, I don't think our law makers know either.
I want the idea to continue and see where it leads. I don't want it passed tomorrow. |
| Tribbey: I believe, as long as Justice Dreifort is intolerant toward gays, lesbians, blacks, unions, women, poor people, and the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments, I will remain intolerant toward him! [to Ainsley] Nice meeting you | |
|
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,010
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 2/28/2013 4:37:50 PM
Honestly, sometimes I think I would like to see the right to vote go back to being restricted to property and business owners. I think letting people who are dependent on government handouts vote is insane. But that isnt going to happen, is it?
Comments like this just show me that we will NEVER ever find a middle ground. I cannot believe that anyone in 2013 actually still thinks this. It is utterly appalling to me. |
 
Blessed Be! | |
|
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,010
Layouts: 0
| |
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,789
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/28/2013 4:44:19 PM
Perhaps I should have clarified. I support the idea of universal background checks,but I don't know how it would be enforced and while I philosophically agree, I don't think our law makers know either.
I want the idea to continue and see where it leads. I don't want it passed tomorrow.
Thank you for clarifying. Sadly, in our state, it probably WILL be passed tomorrow, or next week, regardless of how nebulous the benefit and effectiveness and mechanisms in the bill.
Let me clarify too. I know you and many of the other people in favor of background checks mean well. I know your heart is in the right place. But it is costly and dangerous for our legislators to go around pontificating that we need to do XYZ RIGHT NOW. We gotta. Lives are at stake. We CARE. We gotta do this. We gotta do SOMETHING. We can't go on like we are. etc. This is not leadership. This is not stewardship of resources. This is not even genuine protection of our citizenry. It is taking advantage of a situation and making stuff up as you go without any evidence it will do a societal good. It is using a tragedy to just trot out an old wish list of gun legislation. That is what makes me upset about what is going on in CO and around the country.
For those who don't understand why it's a problem to pass legislation that is unenforceable, doesn't address a specific identified problem to be solved, and doesn't show any thought, here's an analogy.
Let's say I have a kid who is not doing well in school. I BELIEVE he spends a lot of time thinking about his girlfriend, thinking about his favorite video game, etc. when he's supposed to be writing essays or researching a history project. So as a parent, I see this, and I think "I've got to do something about this! Darn it, he's got to stay focused on his schoolwork!" I have no actual proof that him daydreaming is the problem with his grades. He may not be handing in work, he may not understand the material and be afraid to ask, he may have a learning disability. But I perceive something and by gum I'm going to take action because I am an awesome parent and that's what awesome parents do.
I therefore sit him down and say "New rule: when you are sitting doing homework, you may not think about anything else but the homework task you are working on. No more mind wandering. You need to get your mind on your studies." doesn't that sound good? Doesn't that sound like a parent taking charge and turning a wayward student back to business?
How do you think that would work? Could I enforce it? No. Could I monitor it? No. Is it going to work? Is what going to work - he'll get good grades? Is that my goal? Will he practice focused study? Is that my goal? What am I trying to accomplish, and why in heck have I chosen a 'law' that I can't possibly oversee or enforce? How will I punish it? How will I know?
Maybe even more importantly, how will my child view me? Will he have respect for me? Will he dutifully follow my instructions? Will he find my discipline logical and fair? Will he be inclined to respect my rules in general when I give him one that can't possibly be enforced? Will this turn him into a straight A student over the next week or month?
This is how I see universal background checks. We may think it will 'do something', but we haven't really identified what problem we are trying to solve and if it is a significant problem. People are selling guns to their neighbor down the street. So? How is that a problem? How many crimes are committed by people who got guns this way and what outcome do we expect from this law? More importantly, even though we THINK there are crazy people being supplied willy-nilly with guns by idiot neighbors who don't know what they're capable of, how will it be enforced? CAN it be enforced? How many resources will we have to deploy, how much will they cost, and how effective will they be in the ultimate goal of stopping someone from getting a gun who shouldn't have one? Are the background checks we are doing now enforced, cost effective, and do they include all relevant information? Expanding a program that doesn't have the effectiveness we seek will not make us safer.
But we're doing 'something'.
I want to identify what the real problems are that result in Sandy Hooks and Columbines and Aurora theaters, that result in random and driveby shootings in our cities and small towns. I want to identify solutions that have a relationship to those problems. I want to carefully research what laws would solve those problems and how. I want to have a plan to measure the effectiveness of those laws.
I don't want gun control for the sake of 'doing something'. I want gun control legislation that is thoughtfully put together with some sort of logic and relationship to gun crimes so that we don't just 'do something', but we do something right. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,838
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/28/2013 4:54:17 PM
I'm all for responsibility in gun ownership including required training, storing, etc.
Who pays for the training? The gun owner? Gun rights advocates say: Infringement. (Although even Scalia who said in Heller 2008 that the 2nd amendment right for individuals to bear arms is not an absolute right.)
How is the storage requirement checked? Pro-gun proponents have said that is an unreasonable infringement on their privacy. Requirements without enforcement are worthless.
As are laws with loopholes like the ones we currently have.
|
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,079
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/28/2013 7:25:01 PM
A training course required before obtaining permit to purchase and carry where the price is set by private companies based on supply and demand is not infringement as long as the consumer can shop around and make his/her own choice. If we go by what the Founding Fathers' purely intended, that would not be required at all. But I realize we've come to an age where we do have to have some level of government regulations so I prefer them to remain in the power of the state governments and keep the federal government out of it. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,561
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 3/1/2013 12:14:52 AM
"or were somehow involved in felony act" are your keywords. Does it happen? Yes but, there's a lot more to a conviction than driving someone and being clueless about what is going to take place and remaining clueless to what has taken place. You've left a lot out and have reduced it to the ridiculous to make your point and it doesn't hold up in actual real life scenarios.
Hey, I wrote that at 3am, gimme a break. Yes, of course I reduced it down, did you want me to ramble on for entire page of text, explaining in minute detail what's involved in the commission of a felony homicide. You got what I was talking about, so it wasn't 'ridiculous'.... and since you brought up that word, if we're engaged in rational conversation, I dislike the use of derogatory descriptions. They are dismissive, and only serve to demean the person you're talking to. I will always treat your opinions with consideration and respect, unless you piss me off, then all bets are off..... but I prefer to play nice.
So when will Obama be in jail for his role in Fast & Furious which ultimately allowed illegal aliens to kill border patrol agents?
I did mention engaging in rational dialog, didn't I? This is not a good example of rational. Until that goes to court, asserting that F & F 'ultimately allowed illegal aliens to kill border patrol agents'...is a little premature (I thought it was only one agent, Brian Terry) An ABC report in January stated 'Two AK-47 rifles found at the scene were linked to the botched Operation Fast and Furious, in which the U.S. government sought to track firearms sales to violent drug cartels. But it remains unclear whether those weapons were used to kill Terry. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,561
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 3/1/2013 12:17:35 AM
You need to forgive yourself at some point. {{{hugs}}}
Awww, thanks Left. I'll work on that. | |
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| Posted: 3/1/2013 6:41:55 AM
It sucks that you made an assumption about how I would answer your questions in order to beat me over the head with the second amendment, made you look a little irrational don't you think.
Please. I wasnt making any "assumptions". I was giving counter arguments to your arguments. Since when is that "beating" anyone over the head? The only irrationality that goes on around here is the snippy ass comments like this. Sorry if you can't handle someone pushing back on your logic.
You know what also needs to be defined? (Okay, I'll go with you know what else needs to not be completely ignored?)
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"
Here you go:
Definition of well regulated militia
One of thousands of pages turned up by google.
Your argument here is flawed. Tax dollars do support Planned Parenthood, but not abortions performed there. Federal funds have not been used at PP for abortion services in 36 years. So the right to privacy as it applies to abortion is sound. No, it doesn't have to be cheap, but withdrawing tax dollars from PP by trying to tie it to abortions is not valid.
No, not really flawed. Just because their books keep the money separate, doesnt mean the money doesn't support cheaper or free abortions. So, say someone gives me $100 this month, but stipulates that I can not spend it on gas for my car. So I Spend it on groceries, and then I use the $100 of my money that I didn't have to spend at Kroger to pay for my gas. I got the same end result, and still didn't spend the original $100 on gas. PP tax dollars is the same thing, as I see it.
Ummm, yeah, I think exactly what I'm saying that. A lot of those guns manage to get into the hands of criminals because the gun owner did not have them adequately secured. And I put myself into that guilty group. I've mentioned before that our house was robbed, during the day, nobody home or hurt, but the thieves picked up the locked gun case and left with it along with the 8 guns inside. In hindsight, it should have been bolted to the floor, or wall, but it wasn't. That's on us (well, DH since they were his guns!!) There is not a week goes by that I don't wonder whether any of those lethal weapons has been used to take a life. Our guns were more secure than those kept in most homes I've been in. As far as responsibility goes, I do feel responsible for our part in adding to the weapons cache of a criminal. The experience was enough to convince me that we do not need guns in our house.
You locked YOUR house. I'm sorry you feel guilty, but criminals broke into YOUR locked home and stole from you. YOU ARE NOT AT FAULT. I don't care if the gun was sitting on the kitchen table. You are not at fault. Locking your front door is the only precaution you should "have" to take. Criminals are criminals, breaking and entering is a crime, theft is a crime. Having your gun stolen from your own home does not make you guilty of anything. Period.
Liberals?? You really must start saying 'some Liberals', so as not to tar us all with the same brush. Personally I support voter ID. If you want to vote, get off your ass and go get an ID. If you're too poor to pay the $3 for a State ID (or whatever your State charges) then I'm more than happy for the State to waive the fee. After reading some of the ignorant cr*p people post to Facebook, I'm ready to require an IQ test before you're allowed to vote!!!
Well, it certainly isn't any conservatives fighting to let every tom dick and harry vote without IDs. I'm glad we are on the same page here though. 
You amaze me sometimes. What makes you think you should be included as someone who should be allowed to vote? What a stupid elitist you are.
And what a stupid statist you are. What makes me think I should be "allowed" to vote? I am a property owner and a business owner.
Now, if you would care to discuss my statement in a rational faction, I'm all for it. Let me help you...you could have easily responded like this:
"Wow. That's a strong statement, Lynlam. I don't think I agree with it. Can you tell me why you would think that way?"
And then I would say this:
"Sometimes I do think our founders were exactly right when they limited the right to vote to property owners (taking women and blacks out of this discussion, that is not the point). I only recently began thinking about this, as I see more and more of our society becoming dependent on government handouts, which means that more and more demands are being made on property and business owners to give up more of what they work for to support those who are not working for it. The tax paying, job creating business and property owners are becoming outnumbered by people who have discovered that with their vote, they can vote themselves money from the treasury. It promotes the soft bigotry of low expecations, and strips away our drive and need to become the property and business owners of tomorrow."
See...that is a rational discussion, dear Krazy. Try it sometime.
|
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 3/1/2013 7:20:21 AM
Please. I wasnt making any "assumptions". I was giving counter arguments to your arguments. Since when is that "beating" anyone over the head? The only irrationality that goes on around here is the snippy ass comments like this. Sorry if you can't handle someone pushing back on your logic.
Except that all your "counter arguments" were things I actually agreed with, thereby rendering your point useless. Sorry if you can't handle some who can think logically. | |
|
ePEAcenter
BucketHead
PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 639
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 9:02:00 AM
Comments like this just show me that we will NEVER ever find a middle ground
Middle ground (compromise) isn't always the right thing to do. Many vocal 2nd Amendment supporters feel that more than enough compromise on the right to bear arms has already taken place. Compromise always sounds 'reasonable,' except when you are the one constantly walking backwards.
This type of middle ground sounds frighteningly similar to compromising over tax increases now and sequestration later. Now that sequestration is here, were talking about 'compromising' over part cuts and part tax increases.
Sometimes, standing firm for what is right is exactly what is called for, even though it will be spun as intransigent. | |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,789
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 3/1/2013 9:14:27 AM
It sucks that you made an assumption about how I would answer your questions in order to beat me over the head with the second amendment, made you look a little irrational don't you think.
Sorry if you can't handle some who can think logically.
I dont' see why you don't just make your points without adding the personal digs. You are an intelligent woman with who can express yourself in a dignified and articulate manner and add to the discussion. Refuting her statements by clarifying your position would be adequate cold water on her rhetoric. Adding personal insults is beneath you. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 3/1/2013 9:42:57 AM
I dont' see why you don't just make your points without adding the personal digs. You are an intelligent woman with who can express yourself in a dignified and articulate manner and add to the discussion. Refuting her statements by clarifying your position would be adequate cold water on her rhetoric. Adding personal insults is beneath you.
Really? A thread full of snarky comments and you choose to go after me? Fine, personal digs is my character flaw. I'm sure with some self actualization you could determine your own, I won't be so rude as to point them out to you. | |
|
mom_to_a_girl
AncestralPea
PeaNut 97,416
July 2003
Posts: 4,636
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 3/1/2013 9:43:18 AM
I want to identify what the real problems are that result in Sandy Hooks and Columbines and Aurora theaters, that result in random and driveby shootings in our cities and small towns. I want to identify solutions that have a relationship to those problems. I want to carefully research what laws would solve those problems and how. I want to have a plan to measure the effectiveness of those laws.
I don't want gun control for the sake of 'doing something'. I want gun control legislation that is thoughtfully put together with some sort of logic and relationship to gun crimes so that we don't just 'do something', but we do something right.
That's the crux of the matter for me. Our politicians and bureaucrats tend to tilt the pendulum in favor of doing something and then have a hard time figuring out why they didn't achieve the result they were hoping for.
I keep coming back to the fact that prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption, strict drunk driving laws haven't eradicated DUI's, and strong drug laws haven't stopped illicit drugs from being sold nor consumed. Now all of this is not to say we should do nothing, but we should carefully weigh the options and determine what the best solutions are to reducing violence in our society. | |
|
dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread
PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,148
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 9:51:46 AM
If we go by what the Founding Fathers' purely intended,
You keep saying things like this. Just how do you know what the Founding Fathers were thinking or intended? Unless you were there your personal interpretation is just that and nothing more. |
   
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,244
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 10:00:41 AM
Is this going to be a single payer insurance program? | |
|
mom_to_a_girl
AncestralPea
PeaNut 97,416
July 2003
Posts: 4,636
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 3/1/2013 10:31:18 AM
If you don't know how it's going to work, you don't know how it's going to be enforced. Why would you pass a law that no one knows how it will work, or if it will work?
We've done this already. It's called the Affordable Care Act.
Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."Â
ETA: fix wonky symbols | |
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 3/1/2013 10:31:56 AM
Hey, I wrote that at 3am, gimme a break. Yes, of course I reduced it down, did you want me to ramble on for entire page of text, explaining in minute detail what's involved in the commission of a felony homicide.
I-95, the point wasn't about how you did or didn't ramble on. The point was that your argument didn't work. Because you reduced it to the ridiculous. (And that is not the same as saying you are ridiculous.)
It's simply saying that you left out certain facts. Such as the driver has to be actually involved in knowingly getting the shooter to and from the crime scene to be convicted. Or as you're trying to relate it to you and your guns, you had to knowingly leave them unsecured and knowingly inform a criminal that they were there for the taking, for you to be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. If the driver doesn't know anything in advance and still isn't aware of what took place afterward, they are not responsible for the crime and will not be convicted.
Just like you aren't responsible for a a crime committed with your stolen guns that you locked up in a cabinet and then locked in your house, simply because you didn't take it a step further and bolt the cabinet down.
Suppose next time you bolted it to the floor and they ripped up the flooring with it and took it anyway. Now you're responsible for crimes committed with your stolen guns because you didn't go the extra step and have a security system?
Then, suppose the next time you had a security system and they were able to bypass it. Now you're responsible because you didn't go the extra step and hire a security guard? I could go on, but the point is -reasonable expectation.
Locking up your guns in a locked house is reasonable expectation of securing your guns. Going on and on about what you should have done every time a criminal bypasses one of your security measures is "reducing to the ridiculous".
so it wasn't 'ridiculous'.... and since you brought up that word, if we're engaged in rational conversation, I dislike the use of derogatory descriptions. They are dismissive, and only serve to demean the person you're talking to.
I wasn't saying you are ridiculous and I wasn't dismissive or demeaning. Reduce to the ridiculous is a sales technique used in closing a sale and it is what you did with the innocent driver being arrested scenario.
I will always treat your opinions with consideration and respect,
I have no doubt. And I will make sure I do the same.
I did mention engaging in rational dialog, didn't I? This is not a good example of rational.
I am having a rational discussion. You're right, my Obama comment was a bit flippant. But that does not negate my rational discussion.
The idea that someone using reasonable means to secure their weapons, being held responsible and put in jail for people being killed with their guns after being stolen, just does not make any sense.
| |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,789
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 3/1/2013 10:39:51 AM
The idea that someone using reasonable means to secure their weapons, being held responsible and put in jail for people being killed with their guns after being stolen, just does not make any sense.
It does if the goal is to intimidate people into giving up gun ownership. Liability for gun owners whose guns are stolen, requiring insurance, etc. all are about intimidating gun owners with onerous costs and the threat of fines and jail if something beyond their control goes wrong.
As I said before, if the goal is to keep our population safe, the current legislative climate is not going to achieve that goal.
Making lawful gun ownership burdensome and costly, both monetarily and personally, is not about safety. It's about coercing law abiding people to give up the firearms they are permitted to own under the constitution.
DUI's have been reduced not because everyone who owns a car was slapped with burdensome and costly regulation. Not because everyone who partakes of alcohol was slapped with punitive rules and expenses. It was because an effort was made to get people off the street who had demonstrated irresponsible behavior irt drinking and driving. Get caught doing it once, you have major court costs and fines to pay, classes to take, and suspension of driving privileges. It's not a perfect system, but it certainly is targeted at the people it should be, not the entire universe of licensed drivers and purchasers of alcoholic beverages. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 3/1/2013 10:54:39 AM
Well said, Nightowl. | |
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,244
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 12:38:09 PM
You keep saying things like this. Just how do you know what the Founding Fathers were thinking or intended? Unless you were there your personal interpretation is just that and nothing more.
Weak argument. This was already plainly laid out by the SCOTUS in Heller. | |
|
dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread
PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,148
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago
| |
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,244
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 12:55:11 PM
It was already laid out by the SCOTUS very plainly because the language of the Bill of Rights isn't written in Sanskrit.
You're just using your argument to attack a person you disagree with. | |
|
dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread
PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,148
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago
| |
