Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:12 am
by JamieW
I disagree that 2A doesn't apply to conceal carry. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear can be infringed if this and that. It says "shall not be infringed." I consider regulation of keeping and bearing a la concealment to be an infringment.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:15 am
by fookboosh
But it qualifies it with the reasoning for why it shall not be infringed. You dont need to have your gun with you at wallmart for the 2nd amendment to serve its purpose. All this being said i'd be for a new amendment that repeals the second amendment and redifines it more clearly to the intent. But in reallity these days a successful coup could not happen in this country by brute force anyway.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:33 am
by Ian
fookboosh wrote:But in reallity these days a successful coup could not happen in this country by brute force anyway.


It's not so much a coup, but the fear of oppression by the current government. The 2A was there so that the people could rise up and replace the goverment if need be. Just like our founding fathers did.

Who needs a coup anyway. As long as you have the money, you can buy yourself a few government officials and pretty much do as you want. For the people, by the people? Pfft.. For big business, by big business..

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:37 am
by fookboosh
Well when I say coup I mean change of government by a popular revolution. As I said thats not really possible today by brute force. You would have to win over the military to your side somehow and if you could do that you dont really need your guns. So the second amendment doesn't really have any purpose any longer.

"You're a god. Act like one!" -Timothy Leary

----------
benna

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:32 am
by dodecahedron
i'm sure the Founding Fathers didn't mean the every Tom Dick and Harry can go into a shop, buy an AK47 and then spray a school.

you guys (Americans) stick to the constitution quite literally.
take heed. it was written 200 years ago. what was good then ins't necessarily good now.

the Jewish/Hebrew faith brought unto the world some of the most important concepts in Religion, Morality, Social structure and more. well, that was 1000, 2000 years ago. and what now? the (extreme) religious Jews want to raze the Mosque that is situated on Har Habait (the historic location of the Temple, in Jerusalem), build the 3rd temple and start making sacrifices. yes yes, slauter sheep, goats, cows and oxen and burn them to God on a stone altar. just like 2000 years ago. it says so in the Tora (=Bible). it must be what God wants. it will be our salvation, and the Messiah will come.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:38 am
by wicked1
so freedom has a time limit?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:50 am
by dodecahedron
that's not what i meant at all.

what i'm saying is, it may not be the right thing today to take something written over 200 years ago literally.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:08 am
by JamieW
What has changed on this front? Guns more lethal? Not really, firearm capability has not kept up with medicine and in fact people are less likely to from a gunshot wound than they were 200 years ago. Governments have gotten friendlier? If anything, a government is only capable of becoming more corrupted and more oppressive. I don't ever recall a government checking its own power.

And when it is said that the military would need to be "won over" I really question that person's ability to really logic these things out. 1) Posse Comitatus in theory prevents the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines from military activity within the United States borders. 2) Nearly every soldier I've ever spoken to or worked with not only believed in the Constitution and the 2A, but also said they would not take up arms against citiznes. 3) The situation in Iraq right now should prove if anything that a small force is at least capable of severe disruption. 4) A good portion of the US's military might would be moot inside the United States as it destroys infrastructure which would be counter productive.

I submit to you a dissent written by Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court for consideration. It is far more articulate than I could be:

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 6011-12; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon—a sawed-off shotgun—was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

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

The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:14 am
by fookboosh
The Amerikan government has not gotten any nice, this is true. However it has gotten alot more powerful. It has gotten to the point where any attempt at an uprising would be brutally crushed almost imediatly. Therefor I argue the 2nd amendment no longer has the purpose it was created for. You can argue there are other reasons to have guns but thats not what the 2nd amendment is about. If you wish to have the right to bear arms that is not qualified by the reason the 2nd amendment is, then by all means call your congressmen and ask them to bring such an amendment to the house or senate floor. Also with reguard to your arguement that US soldiers would not take up arms against citizens, they say that but it would be very easy for them to be connviced otherwise. Here is what would happen. Up rising starts. Revolutionaries labeled "terrorists." Military men and women told if they dont want to fight that means they want another 9/11. Soldiers fight. If they weren't so easily convinced of things like that they wouldn't have joined the military in the first place.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:22 am
by JamieW
You addressed one out of a multitude of points and addressed it poorly with failing logic that seems to have purposely ignored other points which already rebut your logic. If you can't come up with better than that, I'm going to cease wasting my time discussing this with you as I do not believe you are of sufficient age or intellect to truly participate in the conversation.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:17 pm
by fookboosh
Well you just say that cause your a gun nut and don't agree with me but can't argue. Thats fine whatever man I don't really care. I was bored yesterday so I got into this arguement lol. Its like a game for me. I realize that LIFE is a game and we would all do well to realize that.

---------
benna

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:40 pm
by Ian
fookboosh... benna.. I thought I banned you ages ago.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:50 pm
by aviationwiz
Congrats on 8,000 posts Ian. Well, nearly, 7,999 now.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:51 pm
by fookboosh
Well you can just go on thinking that then can't you!
BTW its aviationwiz that keeps bringing me back here. He links me to threads like this and I just HAVE to reply...isn't that right haloman?

The Velvet Undground - Heroin

don't know just where I'm going
But I'm gonna try for the kingdom if I can
'Cause it makes me feel like I'm a man
When I put a spike into my vein
Then I tell you things aren't quite the same
When I'm rushing on my run
And I feel just like Jesus' son
And I guess that I just don't know
And I guess that I just don't know

I have made the big decision
I'm gonna try to nullify my life
'Cause when the blood begins to flow
When it shoots up the dropper's neck
When I'm closing in on death

And you can't help me, not you guys
Or all you sweet girls with all your sweet talk
You can all go take a walk
And I guess I just don't know
And I guess that I just don't know

I wish that I was born a thousand years ago
I wish that I'd sailed the darkened seas
On a great big clipper ship
Going from this land here to that
On a sailor's suit and cap

Away from the big city
Where a man cannot be free
Of all the evils of this town
And of himself and those around
Oh, and I guess that I just don't know
Oh, and I guess that I just don't know

Heroin, be the death of me
Heroin, it's my wife and it's my life, ha-ha
Because a mainer to my vein
Leads to a center in my head
And then I'm better off than dead

Because when the smack begins to flow
I really don't care anymore
About all the Jim-Jims in this town
And all the politicians making crazy sounds
And everybody putting everybody else down
And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds

'Cause when the smack begins to flow
Then I really don't care anymore

Ah, when that heroin is in my blood
And the blood is in my head
Man thank God that I'm as good as dead
And thank your God that I'm not aware
And thank God that I just don't care
And I guess that I just don't know
Oh, and I guess that I just don't know

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:04 pm
by aviationwiz
fookboosh wrote:Well you can just go on thinking that then can't you!
BTW its aviationwiz that keeps bringing me back here. He links me to threads like this and I just HAVE to reply...isn't that right haloman?


Sir yes Sir :)

I also have to mention it's not optical drive and/or media related, because he does not care for that, as long as it works according to him.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:51 pm
by CowboySlim
fookboosh... benna.. I thought I banned you ages ago.
_________________
Me Grimlock! Me CDRLabs Hardware Editor!


I have no idea what that gibberish is that is posted two up from this, but if he is banished again, I won't be less for not seeing that type of drivel again.

Slim

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:02 am
by Ian
Yeah, he caused all kinds of problems a couple of years ago. He was spamming the forum for some video game website. Damn kids...

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:14 am
by UALOneKPlus
I really need to get an MP5 and an M-4.

Shooting them is so much fun.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:03 am
by chokesondick
CowboySlim wrote:I have no idea what that gibberish is that is posted two up from this, but if he is banished again, I won't be less for not seeing that type of drivel again.


Oh come on man thats some brillian poetry right there. Lou Reed is awsome!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:59 am
by JamieW
Man, a good troll should either be funny or intelligent. You guys are neither. I am both. Worship me.

BTW, you know you love how quickly I identified someone of such profound stupidity without even knowing history.

And which of you chuckleheads changed my sig? I kind of like it.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:03 am
by JamieW
And I just realized that this is the company aviation keeps. Guess these guys aren't this stupid despite social intellectual challenge. I wonder what its like to sit amongst each other and barely able to form complete sentences and even less able to understand anything anyone says.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:18 am
by wicked1
LOL :lol: nuff said about aviationwiz

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:38 am
by dodecahedron
JamieW wrote: Worship me.

oh yes, we do :D

JamieW wrote:BTW, you know you love how quickly I identified someone of such profound stupidity without even knowing history.

oh yes, we do love it :D