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?

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.

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.

Thank you, Simon, I stand corrected.

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!

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?

*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*

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

So while we gut the education system to the ground, we teach kids how to use guns eh?

Your Taxpayer dollars at work.

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

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.

------------------
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