NRA

[3irty1]

packinpatland, rest assured Uncle Sam already sees things your way when it comes to fully automatic weapons. AK-47's are already very much illegal. This Richard Poplawski guy already violated weapons laws just by having one in his possession.

[SkinBasket]

packinpatland, rest assured Uncle Sam already sees things your way when it comes to fully automatic weapons. AK-47's are already very much illegal. This Richard Poplawski guy already violated weapons laws just by having one in his possession.

Are you trying to tell me that a law didn't stop this guy from shooting someone?!?!?!

But surely, if we banned all rifles, they would simply cease to exist, right? And we could all leave our front doors unlocked without fear? And Micheal Moore could just stroll in and sit down and talk to us and we'd all be friends and love each other? Right?
.
..
...
right?

[packinpatland]

Mocking the argument makes it no less valid.

PIP typically will pull out her broad brush on any subject and paint it with the brush. The ideas probably come from DailyKos, Maureen Dowd or someplace as such. Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the emoticons come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it. When Obama made the mistake of poking fun of Special Olympians on Leno, she thought that was A.O.K. (because, as a parent of a special needs child, she could empathize). When I rudely used similar language (for effect), she thought it was “childish”…..which it obviously was. But, it was also childish for Barack. Her intellectual dishonesty was noted.

Yesterday, the sad and horrible crime against these three police officers occurred. That is enough evidence for people to NEVER support the NRA. I disagree. With her logic.

Unfortunately, I was able to post a different horrific crime that occurred the day before by a Vietnamese immigrant. It is irrelevant that he was or is an immigrant. By her logic, we should ban all immigrants. I can use a broad brush too.

The Second Amendment was not put there to protect hunters. That is the way it has been manipulated these days. The Second Amendment was/is there to protect the citizenry of the country from tyrannical governments.

I don’t own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA. There certainly can be a debate about firearms in our country; I just don’t think that emotionally making broad statements after a horrendous crime is the proper way to have the debate.

Attack and snipe...........what you're best at Howard.

[Patler]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

The man who killed the most people, the one at the community center who then committed suicide, used handguns. He had a permit for at least one for more than 10 years, according to several articles I have read. To have prevented that situation you would have to completely outlaw ownership of all firearms.

[retailguy]

Attack and snipe...........what you're best at Howard.

Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the emoticons come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it.

PIP - I think that Howard has you figured out.

I just don’t think that emotionally making broad statements after a horrendous crime is the proper way to have the debate.

Howard - My vote for "best quote of the year". You win, hands down.

[retailguy]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

The man who killed the most people, the one at the community center who then committed suicide, used handguns. He had a permit for at least one for more than 10 years, according to several articles I have read. To have prevented that situation you would have to completely outlaw ownership of all firearms.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Patler wins the "hidden goal" sweepstakes. Of course, you were primed with the goal in an earlier post, when ziggy said to "check with the British". Yes, the British have it all figured out, don't they?

[packinpatland]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

Your point???

[MJZiggy]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

The man who killed the most people, the one at the community center who then committed suicide, used handguns. He had a permit for at least one for more than 10 years, according to several articles I have read. To have prevented that situation you would have to completely outlaw ownership of all firearms.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Patler wins the "hidden goal" sweepstakes. Of course, you were primed with the goal in an earlier post, when ziggy said to "check with the British". Yes, the British have it all figured out, don't they?

What's my goal?

[packinpatland]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.

Howard,

PIP typically will pull out her broad brush on any subject and paint it with the brush. The ideas probably come from DailyKos, Maureen Dowd or someplace as such. Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the emoticons come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it. When Obama made the mistake of poking fun of Special Olympians on Leno, she thought that was A.O.K. (because, as a parent of a special needs child, she could empathize). When I rudely used similar language (for effect), she thought it was “childish”…..which it obviously was. But, it was also childish for Barack. Her intellectual dishonesty was noted.

I didn't use any emoticons.....you used 3.
I didn't read Dowd, or DailyKos.
When something as terrible as those killing happen, is that NOT the time to bring up the fact that laws need to be changed?

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.

Try as I might, I just don't see where the Constitution says those rights evaporate because of the existence of the National Guard, or because we as a society no longer rely on hunting and gathering for daily sustenance.
Some may argue the need for defensive purposes exits to this day. It also can be argued that the National Guard is more governmental armed forces than it is a militia of the citizenry.

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"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."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.

The right expressed, "...of the people to keep and bear Arms" is very clear. Any "qualifier" is specifically excluded by the phrase, "shall not be infringed". Any limitation, for the reasons you expressed or for others, is an infringement of the basic right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the change requires a Constitutional Amendment.

[packinpatland]

I am not disputing the 'right'. I am simply saying the type of arms needs to revisited.

[crosbiegrad]

I am British and have only lived in America for the last 3 years, gun laws in Britian are extremely strict. Do you think that prevents psycho's and criminals from obtaining them?No. It does prevent honest law abiding citizens from having them though, leaving one of those two groups vulnerable.
When I say British, I actually mean I am Scottish, have a lookat the fall out after the Scots had their rebellion in 1744-45, first thing the English set about doing was banning Scots from having any weaponry, subduing the Scots under English control.
Also, nowhere in the constitution does it imply the right to bear arms is for the purpose of hunting. Having dealings with the redcoats does make you want to be able to defend yourself though.

[Patler]

I am not disputing the 'right'. I am simply saying the type of arms needs to revisited.

Our Founding Fathers included many ingenious individuals, inventors and developers of various types, so much so that the original documents provided for the protection of inventors' inventions by patent rights. In no way shape or form did they expect that "Arms" would forever be limited to the muzzle-loaders that existed that day. They prepared a document intended to exist for the ages, into a time they could not even dream of. They knew that changes would be needed as society and mankind changed, so they provided for a procedure of Amendment.

So, what is meant by "Arms"? Should the rights granted by the Second Amendment be interpreted as broadly as those under the First Amendment? A literal approach to interpretation would lead one to the conclusion "Arms" means any and all weaponry. It did at the time the Constitution was written and amended. I believe that is what was meant at the time, but I also believe our Founding Fathers would not now want the result that occurs, because applying that to today allows "the people" to own tanks, missiles, even nuclear weapons.

Our Founding Fathers, being pretty clever, forward-thinking guys, realized they could not foresee the result of all they wrote. So... we get back to the idea of an Amendment. Limiting rights under the Constitution fits nicely with all those purposes listed in the Preamble, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Basically, it tells us what we all know, that in a civilized society, most rights are not absolute and unbounded.

Some of those rights are limited by other factors. The inherent dangers of certain materials limits the unregulated right to own those materials and the nuclear weapons that can be created from them. But for others, like perhaps howitzers, .50 cal. machine guns, missile launchers and the like, we get back to a properly passed Amendment, not judicial or legislative applied limits on the Constitutional Rights granted, as the best solution to deal with it.