I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked
Marx was sure he could create a communist utopia. Marx knew nothing about human nature. You're sure that a viable trigger lock mechanism with the desired characteristics could be created. You know nothing about engineering. The fact that you're "sure" about something of which you know nothing instills me with no confidence, nor should it you.
if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
A) They're completely different technologies.
B) You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.
the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.
You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?
Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.
B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
C) You have yet to respond to the following point:
"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's not what it says.
You're right. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now if you can tell me how this is qualitatively different from what I said above, you may have a point. But you can't, so you won't, so you don't.
You have yet to respond to the following point:
"You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers."
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed
Looks like you did to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
The man was irresponsible enough to leave the gun where his kid could get to it. The man was irresponsible enough NOT to teach his kid the proper respect for a gun. His irresponsibility would have prevented him from locking the gun. And if you think there's such a security device that parent could open that a fifteen-year-old couldn't override, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What, like the non-existant right to seceed?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
Whatever gets you through the night, kid.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
If you can come up with a design for one, please tell me.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
Care to try and legislate that?
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.
Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:
...the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
Bald-faced obfuscation.
As for the rest of your circular route round and about the Second Amendment, sheesh...what a load of horse pooh.
Whatever it is you are trying to say, what is clear is that the Court says that the Second Amendment allows for the regulation of certain weapons.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
History and philosophy. 19th century. Read it and love it.
Don't get me wrong, Omega. I agree, fundamentally, with the observation that there are irreconcilable differences between Marx's theories and the economic realities of the modern world. But Karl Marx != utopian revolutionary. He predicted a revolution with a utopian end. Those are two rather different things, and your constant and continual confusion of them leads me to suspect that you haven't reached your conclusions by, you know, actually knowing what the people involved were talking about.
(Honestly, I didn't mean to go off on such a...long tangential rant there. Please return to your regularly scheduled self-flagelation, I mean debate.)
------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.
[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited March 28, 2001).]
Thank you, Simon, I stand corrected.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
It occurs to me, finally, that every gun I've ever seen is ALREADY equipped with a mechanism like this, which must be disarmed in order to permit firing.
Remarkably, it's called a SAFETY!
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
I'm laying ten to one odds that Jeff will say that the safety needs to be replaced with a trigger lock, because the safety can be left off by an irresponsible person. This, of course, will completely ignore the multiple times that we've pointed out that the same thing applies to trigger locks. Any takers?
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
------------------
"Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years."
- Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15
*Enters English Major mode*
Students, let us look at the language of the time, for it is through etymology that we learn what people said years ago when they used phrases that mean differently than what we take them to mean today.
For instance: "Well regulated." In the early days of the United States, there were a large number of Masonic lodges. These lodges were called 'well regulated' lodges, because they were orderly, disciplined, and well-maintained. A lodge wchich fell into disrepair, or whose members were not reliable, was 'poorly regulated' and soon disbanded.
Hence, 'well regulated' meant 'well maintained and well-equipped.'
Later, 'regulations' came to mean those laws that were enacted to see to it that organizations were well-maintained and well-equipped, such as the military. Still later, rules that governed behavior became additional regulations.
Also, "militia." In the days of the frontier, as can be evidenced from looking at many other writings of the time, the 'militia' was knowingly regarded as the full body public, more especially males of age, who were capable of fighting.
Now, anyone who has ever diagrammed a sentence for 6th-grade English can tell you that a phrase which contains a subject and a predicate, which is set off from the remainder and the object of the full sentence by the use of a comma, is a subordinate phrase. That is, it lends meaning or an explanation to the body of the sentence, but is not required for understanding of its message. For instance: "Because he is a Fundie, Jack is considered a nitwit by Joe."
In this sentence, the important message is that Joe considers Jack a nitwit. the 'Because he is a Fiundie' part is a reason for the object, but is otherwise irrelevant.
Likewise, the subordinate clause which makes up the first half of the second amendment.
Therefore, in context, if it were written using today's speaking terms as defined by the etymology of its wording, the Second Amendment would read:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well-equipped, well-maintained force made up of all well-bodied citizens is necessary for the security of a free country."
*End English Major mode*
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
quote:
My mistake. I was trying to make the entire paragraph look more... poetic, for lack of a better word.
Maybe you should stop trying to make things look pretty and just say what you mean to say?
quote:
You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?
You said you didn't consider the 18-year old who committed the most recent shooting an adult, then blasted the ACLU for it's position that those under 18 shouldn't be tried as adults. Contradictory because you apparently feel even adults shouldn't be prosecuted as such.
quote:
You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.
You completely misunderstand the purpose. Okay -- why do bottles of aspirin have child proof locks? Now, I know when I was little, I had trouble getting them off. I also know that when I'm drunk, I have trouble getting them off. The purpose of a similar device on a gun is to prevent children and drunks from using them.
Now, you say my "pressure sensor" idea won't work? Fine -- that's what this Forum is. What will work better? Do you have any ideas, Omega? Now, since the gun owner/operator will have to first disable the lock (using a quick combination, easy to unlock), what would be the best way to ensure that the gun doesn't re-lock while the owner still needs it?
That is the question. There's an answer somewhere, to say that there isn't is horseshit. And no, "responsible" gun owners isn't an answer: there are far too many irresponsible gun owners out there at the moment, which is why we have kids walking into school and shooting their classmates.
Essentially, what we're looking for is some way to keep guns out of the hands of people whom I think we'll all agree we don't want them in: children, criminals, and those inccapable of making clear decisions (drunks, for one).
This thread has pretty much become "your ideas suck because of THIS!" or "the Constitution doesn't say that!" Well, news-flash: no where in the Constitution does it say that ex-criminals forefit any of their rights, yet even Omega agrees that they shouldn't be allowed firearms anymore.
Government regulation of the gun industry exists whether you like it or not, and while bitching about interpretations of the Second Ammendment is all well and good, the fact of the matter is: the government regulates guns, on the local, state, and Federal level. It's time that you accept that. Is the government going to ban all handguns? Highly doubtful. Let's not forget that it is very rare in this political system for either political power to have enough support to do anything it wants. It'll be quite a long time (centuries, millennia?) before an Ammendment banning guns is brought to Congress, and by the time it is, the issue will no doubt be a moot point.
Are guns bad? No. Are the people who use guns good? Not all. And that's the situation we face, people. Children are dying every-day because other children are getting their hands on guns. How do we keep those guns out of the hands of children?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 28, 2001).]
So while we gut the education system to the ground, we teach kids how to use guns eh?
Your Taxpayer dollars at work.
------------------
"Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years."
- Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15
quote:
[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.
Fo2, if the Court hasn't said anything latley, that rather means it's settled law that the Constitution allows for regulation of weapons. Whether you agree is beside the point, but might make good reading and argument.
However, I believe the reasons given in disagreement are rather lacking. Your Masonic Lodge analogy I find rather deficient in historical evidence and circular in reasoning.
You will find a well stated definition of militia in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Miller also held:
quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
Miller held Congress' authority for such regulation as Art. 1, 8 of the Constitution which reads:
quote:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.
Including the above in a discussion of the Second Amendment makes the 'well regulated' clause rather more important.
Moreover, Justice Douglas writes in dissent in Adams v.Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972):
quote:
The Second Amendment, it was held [in Miller], "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
And Justice Douglas goes on to quote from the Miller decison:
quote:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be [407 U.S. 143, 151] secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion..
In Lesis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) the Court writes:
quote:
These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia")
And Finally, the ever vocal Justice Thomas writes in a concurring opinion in Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States decided rather recently on June 27, 1997. The case regards the Brady Bill and Thomas' opinion might signal the Court wanting to take another look at Miller. At any rate, his opinion reads in part:
quote:
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited March 29, 2001).]
Racism, homophobia, illiteracy, and disease all exist whether we like it or not. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to DO anything about them?
>"Your Masonic Lodge analogy I find rather deficient in historical evidence and circular in reasoning."
That's the perils of etymology (the study of the origin of words and phrases.) This great language of ours, and it's rules, don't always make sense. Why else would the letter combination 'ough' have 8 different pronounciations? As G.Galilei is supposed to have said, "Nevertheless, it moves."
>" In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense.""
The funny thing about this ruling is that a hand grenade IS ordinary military equipment. Think about it.
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
"Miller was held to be an outdated opinion as long ago as the beginning of WW II." Cases v United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942).
"Sawed-off shotguns have considerable utility as military weapons." From Trenches To Squad Cars, Black, The American Rifleman, June 1982, pg. 30.
Ask anyone who has ever crewed on a tank which weapon he wants when an enemy soldier pries open a hatch cover: a rifle too awkward to get into position, a pistol that has to be aimed, or a sawed-off shotgun that merely has to be pointed straight up..
What was funny was that the argument used above made a good case for legalizing civilian possession of hand grenades, since they ARE a common military tool. If that were the criteria to be judged. In fact, there exists numerous bits of military hardware that could be considered 'common.' Including so-called 'assault' weapons, full-auto weapons, rockets...
Since the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to guard against the danger of an oppressive government (you know, the kind that would herd people into reservations and camps because they're Amerind or Asian, or start trying to change the Constitution on political whims), the Founders believed that the citizenry should be nearly as well-armed as the government's forces... which in this case would be the military.
"The original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to have the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. The History of the Second Amendment, 28 Valparaiso University Law Review, 1007, 1009 (1994).
I reiterate the position that the Court has been using an incorrect definition of 'militia' as well as 'regulated.' Hopefully, a future more educated Court will realize that.
more info: let's consider how Congress (the people we vote in and--not frequently enough--vote out)
defines "militia" in clear and immutable terms:
10 U.S.C. � 311 Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of Title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Section 313 of Title 32 merely refers to those individuals who are already members of the National Guard. The nineteenth century Supreme Court flatly stated that, "the militia is all citizens capable of bearing arms." Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886).
As for the assertion that Congress hasn't, and never will, ban the possession of firearms or of handguns... well, besides the FACT that it already HAS banned certain weapons from private ownership (see every single weapon I mentioned above) I can probably find you at least a half-dozen instances in which a bill WAS introduced with the intention of doing so, or of repealing the Second Amendment altogether.
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 29, 2001).]
I blame the Welsh.
------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.
quote:
"The original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to have the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. The History of the Second Amendment, 28 Valparaiso University Law Review, 1007, 1009 (1994).
So the Second Ammendment should allow the common Joe-Schmoe to own tanks and F-15s? Hell, why not a nuclear bomb?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
quote:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.
Article 1 section 8
Even assuming that 'well regulated' also means something akin to 'well ordered', the above of the Constitution gives Congress authority for arming the militia and by extension regulation of arms carried by said militia.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
*KarrdeSpeak*
YOU prove it.
*/KarrdeSpeak*
To which I would reply that your side is the one making the assertation, Jeff. You're asserting that the Constitution says something. I'm denying that. It's YOUR job to prove your position, not mine to disprove it.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
More, you both agree that regulation is essential when it comes to Criminals and ex-Criminals, even though the Constitution says NOTHING about restricting any of the rights of those who have served their time for a crime committed. Whether you realize or wish to admit it or not, you do agree.
Proof enough. =)
(Speaking of which, while it's certainly nice to see that Omega has learned to spell "Britain" correctly, it'd be nice if he could learn to do the same with my name.)
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 31, 2001).]
Let's be clear about this. The Constitution says that Congress arms and diciplines the militia. Moreover, the Constitution also says Congress has the authority:
quote:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Article 1 section 8.
The militia is a military force on land. Rules and regulation being what they are, combined with the other authority given Congress over the militia, are the writing on the wall for your impoverished point of view.
Your idea is and has been to make statements with nothing to back them up. According to the old admonition, show don't tell. Well you can't show.
I've shown what the Constitution says about Congress and the militia. Further I've shown what the Constitution says about regulation of land forces of which any militia is a part. Cleary, putting these together, Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate the weapons carried by any militia.
Morover, this calls into question a sore on Fo2's 'well regulated' body argument of 'well ordered' singular meaning:
quote:
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is
so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
Alexander Hamilton from Federalist No. 29 indicates that, he for one, felt well regulated intended regulation of the militia and not simple training.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
Let's be clear about this. The Constitution says that Congress arms and diciplines the militia. Moreover, the Constitution also says Congress has the authority to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
Yes, but the militia only becomes an actual part of the military at such time as they are called into service, ala a draft or invasion. Thus, the regulation portion does not apply to private citizens. Further, even if it did, it would ONLY apply to able-bodied men between the ages stated earlier. And yet further, even if the above qualifications did not exist, the second ammendment overrides the original text. It IS an ammendment, after all.
So, the highest law on the subject would be the most recent related ammendment to the Constitution, that being that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Game over. You loose.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:
Game over. You loose
::runs to bathroom:: Phew! Got there in time.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Anyway, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Now, they haven't been doing a smack-dab job of it in recent years (look at what they did for "Dubya" as an example), but they've been hitting things pretty clearly on the gun issue. Proof enough.
Second, you still haven't responded to this point:
The Constitution says nothing about restricting the rights of ex-Criminals. Yet you want guns kept away from them. How do you support that without also supporting government regulation of guns? Contradictory.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Why do we need guns in the first place? Perhaps if this aspect, (what seems to be the basis of the entire argument), was examined, then we could come to some reasonable conclusion.
Depending upon how the constitution is interpreted, it is our inalienable right to bear firearms. Why? What do we need them for and why should we have the right to maintain them? Do we really need them for protection and recreational purposes? Are they a basic and fundamental part of our lives, without which we would suffer intolerably? Would it be so horrible if we restricted firearms completely from the American public? Answer these questions please, using logical, rational statements supported by evidence without making exceptions to the points you are making, and perhaps we will get somewhere useful.
(For the record, I would like to point out that I believe Japan bans use of firearms by any persons other than the police or armed forces, and they seem to make out just fine. The most recent case of "domestic" violence I have read in the NY Times occuring in Japan, was of a mentally unbalanced office worker who fatally stabbed his employer and several others before being apprehended by the police. This was two years ago.)
I'll spell it out for you.
As contempory of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton writes, well regulated means more that Fo2's singular "well maintained" or "well-equipped" definition.
Therefore the well regulated phrase of the Second Amendment reaffirms the regulatory authority over the militia given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8.
quote:
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
-ACLU
I'll avoid any childish ending statements.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
quote:
Yes, but the militia only becomes an actual part of the military at such time as they are called into service, ala a draft or invasion. Thus, the regulation portion does not apply to private citizens.
I've got a couple of things to say about this and the individual's Constitutional right to own firearms outside of the context of militia...because this is afterall the crux of the argument...I was just waiting for the other side to figure that out...
But I'm very busy at work so it will have to wait.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 01, 2001).]
Come on, Jeff, we beat the snot out of you on that one, too. Do you REALLY want to bring that thread back from the dead? Or do you forget your failures that fast?
but they've been hitting things pretty clearly on the gun issue.
No, they haven't, as I have just shown.
Second, you still haven't responded to this point:
Yes, I have. I responded by saying that criminals have no rights, as such, because there is not necessarily such a thing as an ex-criminal. Once you're arrested, you have no rights, beyond that of avoiding cruel and unusual punishment, and your rights are only reinstated at the instruction of local or state law. If that's never, well, that's your fault.
Daniel:
Why do we need guns in the first place?
To defend ourselves from those who have malicious intent.
Do we really need them for protection and recreational purposes?
Yes.
Would it be so horrible if we restricted firearms completely from the American public?
Yes.
Answer these questions please, using logical, rational statements supported by evidence without making exceptions to the points you are making, and perhaps we will get somewhere useful.
I did. Look up the preceeding thread, a couple pages before the end. I pointed out several different surveys that contained the statistic that Americans use firearms to prevent crimes at a bare minimum of several hundred thousand times a year, and quite likely more. I also pointed to a refutation of the statistic that it's more like tens of thousands, obtained by a single survey, before anyone points that out.
Also, how would you propose taking guns away from all criminals, at the same time you took them from non-criminals? They wouldn't just turn them in.
I would like to point out that I believe Japan bans use of firearms by any persons other than the police or armed forces, and they seem to make out just fine.
Britan did the same thing, and their crime rate sucks royally.
Jay:
Therefore the well regulated phrase of the Second Amendment reaffirms the regulatory authority over the militia given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8.
Except that it ISN'T LAW! Do you need Rob to diagram the sencence for you again? Or shall he just copy and paste the previous post where he shot your entire argument down, which you apparently ignored? That phrase of the sentence is an explaination, not a qualification. The second ammendment gives NO POWER to regulate a militia, and even if we assume that such power as granted in Article I gave the power to restrict private ownership of firearms (which it didn't), the Second AMMENDMENT overrides it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Why is this law so hard for you to grasp?
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:
Come on, Jeff, we beat the snot out of you on that one, too. Do you REALLY want to bring that thread back from the dead? Or do you forget your failures that fast?
If you say so, kid.
quote:
Yes, I have. I responded by saying that criminals have no rights, as such, because there is not necessarily such a thing as an ex-criminal. Once you're arrested, you have no rights, beyond that of avoiding cruel and unusual punishment, and your rights are only reinstated at the instruction of local or state law. If that's never, well, that's your fault.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."
Now, who shall not infringe it? Why, the government shall not! Well, which government? Why -- any government!
*GASP!* It says specificly that the right to own a gun shall not be infringed! The government on any level can't touch it! Your explanation is only valid if you agree on government regulation.
quote:
To defend ourselves from those who have malicious intent.
Sadly, it is often people with guns who have malicious intent.
quote:
Would it be so horrible if we restricted firearms completely from the American public?
It'd be great.
quote:
I did. Look up the preceeding thread, a couple pages before the end. I pointed out several different surveys that contained the statistic that Americans use firearms to prevent crimes at a bare minimum of several hundred thousand times a year, and quite likely more.
We gotta do this again? Actually, the number is just over 100,000. Since the others who claim they used their guns to ward off crime:
a) didn't report it to the authorities, it ain't official, no much how Omega wants to believe it so
b) there's no guarantee that there was a legitimate threat (the police coulda made that determination)
c) they could be exaggerating to impress the poll-ster (they could either be making up instances out of thin-air, or relating incidents which happened months or years ago as having happened more recently)
d) since Omega's numbers were gained by a phone-poll, you've got the problem of oversampling.
These are just some of the problems with Omega's figures. Not to mention that he recently dropped the number "two-million", so he's being really inconsistent with this stuff and is hard to believe. Refer to the previous thread for more information on why Omega's source is highly un-reliable.
quote:
Also, how would you propose taking guns away from all criminals, at the same time you took them from non-criminals? They wouldn't just turn them in.
Well, Omega, considering that most of those now-illegal guns were at one time legal guns which could quite possibly still be owned by their legal owner is someone had thought to include a gun lock or a gun safe ... careless people shouldn't own guns. Not that you care.
quote:
Britan did the same thing, and their crime rate sucks royally.
Ah, well, at least you're consistent with spelling my name wrong. What's your source for this?
quote:
The second ammendment gives NO POWER to regulate a militia, and even if we assume that such power as granted in Article I gave the power to restrict private ownership of firearms (which it didn't), the Second AMMENDMENT overrides it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Why is this law so hard for you to grasp?
You keep avoiding the question, Omega. If the right can't be infringed, why do you support keeping guns away from those who have committed crimes and served their time? The only answer is that you believe the government has the right to regulate handguns.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you're screaming over the government regulations, when you're clearly in support of some of them? Please elaborate, because as far as I can tell, you're being a hypocrite.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 01, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 01, 2001).]
I've answered this. CRIMINALS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Period. Once you commit and are convicted of a felony, your rights are non-existant, until such time as they are reinstated by law. Or do you think that people IN PRISON should be allowed to have guns?
Unsurprisingly, you're not arguing against my point that the government can't regulate private ownership of guns anymore. You, in your limited view, are presenting me with two choices: either the government can regulate EVERYONE's guns, or the government must allow even INCARCERATED CRIMINALS to have guns. Can you honestly not see a third option? Are you so blind?
And since that's the only point you made of any kind...
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:
I've answered this. CRIMINALS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Period. Once you commit and are convicted of a felony, your rights are non-existant, until such time as they are reinstated by law. Or do you think that people IN PRISON should be allowed to have guns?
We're not talking about incarcerated criminals anywhere. When have I mentioned them once?
We're talking about people who have committed crimes, gone to jail, and been released. By your view of the 2nd Ammendment, they should have the right to own guns. And yet, you argue that they shouldn't have that right. If the government can't regulate guns, how do you determine that they can't have that right?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
No, they shouldn't, for reasons I've now explained several times.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
Now, see, there's nothing in the Second Ammendment about restricting someone's rights after they've done their time. There's nothing in the Constitution about it, either. And, Mr. Diagram-The-Damn-Sentance, you seem to be reaching outside of your previous arguments to make that asertion. Frankly, it's not in league with your "Precise!" interpretation of the Constitution. It's contradictory and hypocritical.
The only way you could possibly agree that ex-cons be forbidden from owning guns is if you agree that the government has the right to restrict said ownership.
See ... keeping guns from ex-criminals = regulation. No matter how you look at it.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 01, 2001).]
However, from the 2nd Amendment, it could be interpreted that the US government cannot regulate this. To legislate it might be against the constitution.
Fortunately, I don't believe in that interpretation. I am of the belief that the 2nd amendment is so horrifically outdated that it should have been repealed long ago. Do we seriously need state militias when we have the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Coast Guard, etc.? Do you think anyone would actually ATTEMPT to invade our country by land? The concept is absurd.
Unfortunately, many look on the right to bear arms as an inalienable right to which every living soul in the world, (sans terrorists et al, of course), should have because such weapons are SO important in our daily lives. Somehow, this still escapes me. Perhaps someone who supports this right could explain to me more fully why it is neccessary. Besides protection, what do these weapons do for us? You feel more secure having a weapon in the house. You have fun shooting things. THIS is an inalienable right?
[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited April 01, 2001).]
Example: Say I kill someone. The law could easily say, "This person will be punished by having his right to own a firearm revoked. He will also spend the next twenty years in prison, after which time he will be released, subject to good behavior."
If you commit a crime, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, except those specifically devoted to you as a criminal (trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc.). The applicable government can do whatever it wants to you. If the lawmakers want to execute you for simply pointing a gun at someone, that's well within their rights. So if they can revoke every other right that a criminal previously had, why not this one?
See ... keeping guns from ex-criminals = regulation.
I obviously disagree, but even if you were rights, Jeff, I would contend that a convicted criminal is no longer one of "the people" whose rights are protected by the Constitution.
And again, I point out that you no longer make any argument against my Constitutional interpretation. Care to explain to the group why that is? Did you finally realize that I was right, or what?
Daniel:
As he stated, a criminal's rights are reinstated after they have carried out their sentence. They once again become full and viable citizens of the United States.
Not if the law says otherwise. If there's a qualification that affects you for the rest of your life after you've commited a crime, you have NEVER fully carried out your sentence. You're still being punished, and are therefore no longer a "full and viable citizen", short of having the sentence revoked.
Look at it like being on parole for the rest of your life. Parolees can't own firearms if the law and judge say so, now can they?
Besides protection, what do these weapons do for us?
You need something else? Protection of self, family, and property sounds like a pretty DARNED good reason to me.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
What I am trying to say is that any criminal who has fully carried out his/her sentence, (i.e., shorter than life term with parole completed), has the right to bear arms restored to him. Unless another crimes has been committed after the fact, this right cannot be denied him/her.
So, according to the current interpretation, (your own), of the 2nd amendment, you cannot legislate against ex-convicts who have FULLY carried out their sentences.
"Hey you, you committed a manslaughter seven years ago, and even though you've done your time, we say you can't own a gun."
That cannot happen according to your own interpretation because the ex-criminal has been "restored to society" shall we say. He is a full citizen, and it would be a horrible thing for his rights as an American citizen to be abridged. Heck, it would violate the 2nd amendment!
You've said it as best as anyone could. However, Omega will no doubt still not respond to the question and continue to say "the criminal has no rights!!" Apparently, he's not very big on "forgiveness", so once a criminal always a criminal.
You wanna respond, Ommie?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Not if his sentence INCLUDES perpetual revocation of his right to own a weapon. In that instance, his sentence can NEVER be completely carried out, by definition.
Think about it this way: if the government has the right to put you in jail for the rest of your life as punishment for a crime (as I'm sure all participants in this discussion agree that it does), why would it not have the right to do the far lesser thing of removing your right to own a gun, again as punishment for a crime?
We're not talking about punishment after a sentence has been completed. We're talking about something that is an integral part of that sentence.
And yet again, I ask Jeff: do you no longer have any objection to my argument on the unconstitutionality of the government regulation of private ownership of firearms? You have masterfully attempted to drive us off topic, but to no avail. Please, answer the question, eh?
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:
And yet again, I ask Jeff: do you no longer have any objection to my argument on the unconstitutionality of the government regulation of private ownership of firearms?
No, I still have objection to your view of the Constitution and how it applies to the Second Ammendment. I don't belief it's a realistic (in view of contemporary law) way of looking at the situation, although you certainly are quite an eloquent speaker in your defense of your beliefs.
quote:
You have masterfully attempted to drive us off topic, but to no avail. Please, answer the question, eh?
Why thank you, sir, but I must disagree with your assertion that the question posed was off topic. By the strict definition of the Constitution, the rights of the citizen to own and bare a weapon cannot be infringed, yet the citizen who commits a crime and serves his time, after release, has that right infringed upon. There is a conflict which can only be resolved by the government having the right to regulate.
quote:
Not if his sentence INCLUDES perpetual revocation of his right to own a weapon. In that instance, his sentence can NEVER be completely carried out, by definition.
While I agree that this is a step which the government (at either state or Federal level) should look at implementing, to override the Second Ammendment (per your definition), it would have to be done as an Ammendment to the Constitution. Since it hasn't been, we can conclude one of two things:
a) The government is violating the Constitution by refusing to allow former convicts the right to possess and use firearms.
or ...
b) The government has the authority to regulate the Second Ammendment.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Plain simple and to the point, the Constiution gives Congress the right to regulate the militia and offers no guarantee to the ownership of firearms without an express connection with said militia.
quote:
Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
There is a defacto right to regulate in the fact that nuclear weapons are not allowed for private use. I believe that the Second Amendment and the appropriate portions of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution supports that defacto right.
Your attempts to show otherwise were ignorant of the document you choose to argue from and distinctly lacking historical and judicial evidence.
The argument becomes what constitutes a reasonable restriction on the militia and weapons. But at this point I refuse to waste any more of my time on you regarding this issue. I would advise others do the same, that way your simpering foolishness and protruding ego will both die out like weeds that are not watered.
------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 02, 2001).]
But NOT if that infringement was an integral PART of his sentence. You can have your property rights removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to free association removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to freedom of movement removed as part of your sentence. Why make an exception for the right to own and carry a gun?
I still have objection to your view of the Constitution and how it applies to the Second Ammendment. I don't belief it's a realistic (in view of contemporary law) way of looking at the situation
Oh, so in other words, screw what the Constitution says, and just do whatever works? That's called facism, IIRC, and as a general rule, it doesn't work.
See, whether you personally like it or not doesn't really matter. What I'm describing is what the Constitution says, and is thus law.
Jay:
the Constiution gives Congress the right to regulate the militia and offers no guarantee to the ownership of firearms without an express connection with said militia
What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 01, 2001).]
quote:
But NOT if that infringement was an integral PART of his sentence. You can have your property rights removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to free association removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to freedom of movement removed as part of your sentence. Why make an exception for the right to own and carry a gun?
Omega ... that's the whole point. Judges and juries DON'T make that an integral PART of anyone's sentence because the government already does it! The only way that this is legal (by your view of the Constitution) is because THE GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE! Get used to it. Hell, even your proposal gives the government the right to regulate the 2nd Ammendment. Christ, you gave in easily on this one.
quote:
Oh, so in other words, screw what the Constitution says, and just do whatever works? That's called facism, IIRC, and as a general rule, it doesn't work.
When did I say that? I said your view of the Constitution, which is flawed. Oh, by the way ... as a general rule, your interpretations of the Constitution are very rarely correct.
See, Omega, whether you personally like Gov't regulation or not doesn't really matter. What Jay has described so perfectly is what the Constitution says, and is thus law.
quote:
What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me.
Which you're restircting to those who've served terms! Ah, I know, horse = beat = dead.
We're simply discussing regulation of said guns (as the general purpose), not banishment. If the 2nd Ammendment is simply the right to own firearms, then government regulation does not endanger that, now does it? Thank you.
Now, for those of you who have read this thread:
You will find Omega usually prefers to bash his head into a brick wall about fifty times, thereby wasting not only his own time, but the time of anyone else who gets ensnared in the thread. He ignores things, ducks arguments, and avoids answering questions. He pretends not to see the holes in his arguments. But, hey, he's Omega, and he's fun to have around. You'll find he enjoys crying "foul!" when someone commits what is known as an "ad-hominem" (English: insult), yet he routinely throws them out himself. Now, forgive me for rambling, but essentially what happened in this thread was this:
Omega say government can't regulate handguns.
Omega supports government regulation of handguns to people who have served their prison term.
Omega recants earlier views to admit that the 2nd Ammendment (even by his extreme Constitutional views) only prohibits the Fed Gov't from banning private ownership of guns, and not regulation of said guns.
Now, what this means is that this thread has now ended. Until Omega begins posting more nonsense. But, hey, he's Omega, and we all love him for who he is.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 01, 2001).]
Um... when did I do this?
Omega supports government regulation of handguns to people who have served their prison term.
You seem to equate "prison term" with "sentence". Punishment for a crime can be whatever the law says it is (short of being "cruel and unusual"). You can't name a legal punishment that doesn't involve restriction of rights. It's just a matter of WHICH rights, when, and for how long.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:
What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me.
Right there. You mention nothing of government regulations except that the government can not stop someone from owning a gun. Regulation doesn't prevent people from owning guns.
quote:
You seem to equate "prison term" with "sentence". Punishment for a crime can be whatever the law says it is (short of being "cruel and unusual"). You can't name a legal punishment that doesn't involve restriction of rights. It's just a matter of WHICH rights, when, and for how long.
You seem to equate "someone who has finished their punishment" with something else. Current law says the government can regulate the 2nd Ammendment to prohibit guns to those who've been in jail. That's the "how long" part, but here's where it gets interesting: unless you believe the government has the right to legislate, then you've gotta admit that your interpretation of the Constitution requires those ex-cons to have the freedom to own a gun if they so desire.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited April 02, 2001).]
You're just so desperate to have me agree with you that you'll do anything, aren't you? Ignore arguments, twist statements, anything. Tell me: did you actually read the discourse and ignore it; or did you just jump on an opportune phrase that you happened across while you were scrolling down past it all, and decide to take it out of context?
But for the rational among us, the statement in question was a response to a statement by Jay, in which HE didn't mention anything about regulation, but only about the right of ownership. Specifically:
"the Constiution gives Congress the right to regulate the militia and offers no guarantee to the ownership of firearms without an express connection with said militia".
This I responded to with:
"What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me."
You seem to equate "someone who has finished their punishment" with something else.
This statement makes no sense.
Current law says the government can regulate the 2nd Ammendment to prohibit guns to those who've been in jail.
This is not regulation of the second ammendment. It's punishment for a crime, just like prison or fines. Would you call those regulation of the appropriate rights? Wait, of course YOU would. But would any rational person?
unless you believe the government has the right to legislate, then you've gotta admit that your interpretation of the Constitution requires those ex-cons to have the freedom to own a gun if they so desire.
OK, I am now typing slowly, for the benefit of the thinking impaired.
If... the... removal... of... any... given... right... for... the... rest... of... one's... life... is... part... of... the...sentence... then... the... criminal... is... never... an... ex... con.
Do I need to say it slower?
IIFFFF... THHHEEEEE...
And yet again, I point out that the second ammendment applies to "The People", of which a criminal is not a part. If you break the social contract, as Rob puts is when HE tries to get something through your head, your rights are at the discression of the law and a judge and jury.
How many different ways can I say this? How 'bout this...
If there was no way to restrict the rights of criminals, why would have laws at all? There'd be no way to enforce them.
Jeff, ALL rights can be suspended for ANY length of time for ANY crime, dependant upon the applicable laws. You seem to associate not being in prison with having all your rights reinstated. This does NOT have to be the case. If someone's on parole, they're not in prison. Does that mean that they have all the rights they had before?
Prison isn't the single or a superceeding method of punishment. It's just the one that you've gotten stuck in your head as being the KEY method. You seem to think that once you're out of prison, everything's just hunky-dory. Well, WHY? What's so unique about prison? It's a removal of rights, like any other punishment, be it fines, or having your right to own a gun revoked.
Try to think outside the box you've created for yourself. There's a whole big world out there.
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
quote:
If there was no way to restrict the rights of criminals, why would have laws at all? There'd be no way to enforce them.
So, you're not in favor of ever forgiving them? Why not just press for life-sentences or the death penalty for everybody, then?
quote:
Prison isn't the single or a superceeding method of punishment. It's just the one that you've gotten stuck in your head as being the KEY method. You seem to think that once you're out of prison, everything's just hunky-dory. Well, WHY? What's so unique about prison? It's a removal of rights, like any other punishment, be it fines, or having your right to own a gun revoked.
Not at all. I agree that those who have gone to jail shouldn't be allowed to own guns. HOWEVER, I understand that that is because the government regulates the 2nd Ammendment. We agree on the end result, just not on how we get there.
However, by YOUR definition of the 2nd Ammendment, people should be allowed to own guns once they get out of jail. Again, by your view, this could only be changed by an Ammendment. However, since the rest of us live in the "real-world", we recongize that the government has the right to regulate guns. This is why ex-cons don't own them.
quote:
If... the... removal... of... any... given... right... for... the... rest... of... one's... life... is... part... of... the...sentence... then... the... criminal... is... never... an... ex... con.
Omega, you say if that becomes part of their sentence. Yet, you must admit that there are no cases (at least, none that I know of, and certainly this is not done in a uniform case) where a judge has added the "no guns!" to someone's sentence.
So, until your proposal becomes law, anyone who serves their time and gets out of jail should be allowed to have a gun (by your definition of the 2nd Ammendment). The fact that s/he is not allowed to is government regulation.
So desperate NOT to agree with me, huh?
I'll say it again. Slowly, so you can understand.
G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N O-F T-H-E S-E-C-O-N-D A-M-M-E-N-D-M-E-N-T I-S C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L
And like it or not, you agree to that in a degree if you do believe that ex-cons shouldn't have cons.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 02, 2001).]
The government can not regulate the free excercize of a right enumerated in the Constitution. This is by definition.
However, by YOUR definition of the 2nd Ammendment, people should be allowed to own guns once they get out of jail.
NOT if their legally imposed sentence says otherwise. You seem to imply that you know more about my views than I do, when you in fact have them quite wrong. Even though I've spelled them out half a dozen times, now. That's just sad.
Omega, you say if that becomes part of their sentence. Yet, you must admit that there are no cases (at least, none that I know of, and certainly this is not done in a uniform case) where a judge has added the "no guns!" to someone's sentence.
If it's in the legal code of the state that it's a manditory part of the sentencing for a given crime, the judge doesn't HAVE to say it, now does he?
------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
That's all JeffK is asking for anyways.
------------------
"Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years."
- Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15
quote:
NOT if their legally imposed sentence says otherwise. You seem to imply that you know more about my views than I do, when you in fact have them quite wrong. Even though I've spelled them out half a dozen times, now. That's just sad.
Bold is mine, BTW.
And that, Omega, is the crucial flaw in your argument. IF their sentence says otherwise. Please refresh my memory on how many sentences specificly restrict one's rights to own a firearm after their jail term has expired?
The only way it's possible to keep guns from these people is government regulation.
How many times have I spelled this out?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001