Quantcast

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: The Gun thread.

  1. #91
    Angry Liberal Arts Major Hero of Algol Iron Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bisbee, AZ
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,864
    Rep Power
    110

    Default

    Is my insane and reductive mind incorrect picking these out as your main points.....

    Quote Originally Posted by EclecticGroove View Post
    To be clear, I do not think the 2A should be removed, or even greatly altered (if at all). It's simply a conversation about what kind of weaponry is truly meant and needed for a private citizen to own...

    At what point do you set the line between, "your right to bear arms" from, "shit that only a standing military should have access to... if we even want them to have it"?

    Because that already happens, the only differences are where any given set of people thinks that line should be drawn.
    So we're bickering over where the line is? I like where it is , and I take you don't? Not sure where to go from there.

  2. #92
    Raging in the Streets EclecticGroove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    2,656
    Rep Power
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCU View Post
    Courts have ruled the police do not have an obligation to protect you.
    That depends on your definition of protection. Do they provide personal security for your average citizen? No. But they are there to enforce the rule of laws as they are defined within their jurisdiction. Any discussion about if they actually do that is certainly valid, but not to this topic. That is their primary function. As such, it provides protection to your average citizen because those who break the law are assumed to be able to be caught and punished.


    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Lizard View Post
    Is my insane and reductive mind incorrect picking these out as your main points.....



    So we're bickering over where the line is? I like where it is , and I take you don't? Not sure where to go from there.
    The place to go there is to actually open up the conversation and see what people want.
    The moment someone talks about gun control or anything of the sort people shut up and start screaming at one another.
    I don't discount that there are some who would like to see guns gone altogether, or that they would like to limit guns in a much more restrictive way entirely. But that is usually not the argument on the table.
    You can still be free to think is stupid. But argue it on its merits.
    Someone calls for a ban on "assault weapons". Pull out the same gun that looks like a standard hunting rifle and ask them if that is an assault weapon or not. Talk about why it's stupid and educate people.

    Because the stupid exists on both sides. If you hate when someone talks about banning assault weapons without any clear understanding of what that means, or even what constitutes an assault weapon.
    How do you think others feel when they talk about having a conversation about guns after another idiot has walked into a public place and murdered people with their/their parents/friends weapons only to see more than a small number of gun owners instantly react with crap like, "From my cold dead hands"? Not even looking at anything even remotely close to the actual topic, yet blasting out that the government wants to take all their guns and will be coming into your homes to take them from you.

    People do a lot of shouting and screaming, but not a whole lot of listening and talking. The 2A isn't some religious scripture, it's worth people having a discussion about it.

  3. #93
    AKA Mister Xiado Master of Shinobi Raijin Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,056
    Rep Power
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EclecticGroove View Post
    That is a false argument.
    How can you assume it would be added? The very fact that the 2A even exists is proof they can't think of everything. Hence why there is a process to add amendments in the first place.
    The preamble, seven articles, and closing of the Constitution of the United States of America describe the framework of the United States government. The purpose of this first page of the Constitution is not to outline the laws of the land and the rights of the people, but the framework of the system that manages this. The Bill of Rights is, as stated previously, an enumeration of protected rights guaranteed to all citizens, and the following amendments add to the initial ten, with some hemming and hawing over alcohol, and additional layers of protecting the rights of citizens to vote.
    As for the rest. The police are there to protect us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Warren v. District of Columbia
    In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. In a 2-1 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that Warren, Taliaferro, and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. In a unanimous decision, the court also held that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of her complaint. The case was reheard by an en banc panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.



    In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine. The Court explained that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." The Court adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
    There existed no such commonplace group in times past. Smaller groups of people, larger areas, less congestion, etc. The first legitimate police forces were coming into being around the same time as the 2A, but most "police" services were done via local elected officials and the local militias.

    So at that point in time, there was no one aside from private citizens that would provide law enforcement or protection at a local level. The military was not meant for that purpose, and the national guard was not formed until much later.

    So in that regard, the major reasons for the actual need for the 2A are no longer present.
    This is irrelevant. The Constitution and Supreme Court have ruled on this time and time again, further clarifying the coverage and purpose of the Second Amendment. I have elaborated on this on page 5 of this thread.
    For the home defense argument.... Can you protect your home with something like a mounted .50 cal? Are cannons fair game? If so, what about RPG's, SAM's, a Howitzer?A tactical nuke?
    What about landmines, or chemical weapons?
    For being the one to call out reductionism, you surely have gone to the level of absurdity. I shall humor you none the less. If I wish to mount a .50 caliber gun in my home, I may do so, though I do not wish to deal with mess. I've spoken with a man who, because of various unexpected circumstances, had used a a 20mm rifle as an emergency self-defense weapon. According to him, not only did the home invader not survive the encounter, his hearing was significantly and permanently damaged, with some structural damage to his home as the least severe issue in the event. (Smooth-bore) cannons are legal, at least in my state, but it is difficult to justify their use in court. Having the time to prepare a cannon, aim it, and fire, indicates a distinct lack of urgency. Imminent or immediate danger to one's life are key in being adjudicated as having used deadly force with just cause. Anything beyond these have been covered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. I personally have no desire to use explosives, as I am not wealthy enough to purchase the munitions or launchers, and I have nothing to explode that would get me lots of views on Youtube.
    At what point do you set the line between, "your right to bear arms" from, "shit that only a standing military should have access to... if we even want them to have it"?

    Because that already happens, the only differences are where any given set of people thinks that line should be drawn.
    Truthfully, the ATF sets that, and I personally am not experience or qualified to debate the propriety of ordnance and explosives, and least of all, indirect weapons.

    I will brook the restriction of the Second Amendment no more than I will permit the restriction of the First.

  4. #94
    Master of Shinobi JCU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Scranton, Pennsylvania
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,546
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EclecticGroove View Post
    That depends on your definition of protection. Do they provide personal security for your average citizen? No. But they are there to enforce the rule of laws as they are defined within their jurisdiction. Any discussion about if they actually do that is certainly valid, but not to this topic. That is their primary function. As such, it provides protection to your average citizen because those who break the law are assumed to be able to be caught and punished.
    Based on how and why you felt the need to start talking about police (while comparing past and present law enforcement) most certainly carries validity within this discussion.

  5. #95
    Death Adder's minion Wools's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    UK
    Age
    35
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Just to point out to the original poster, that Daily Mail article you linked to is not worth the paper it's printed on. They regularly print full blown lies on the front page, the death by guns here in the U.K. is almost non existent, don't believe the Daily Mail.

    Seriously hope you guys in the US get guns banned so you can live a peaceful life or at least get some harsher checks in place before guns are purchased.

  6. #96
    Antiquing Hedgehog Lord QuickSciFi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Age
    40
    Posts
    19,201
    Rep Power
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wools View Post
    Just to point out to the original poster, that Daily Mail article you linked to is not worth the paper it's printed on. They regularly print full blown lies on the front page, the death by guns here in the U.K. is almost non existent, don't believe the Daily Mail.

    Seriously hope you guys in the US get guns banned so you can live a peaceful life or at least get some harsher checks in place before guns are purchased.
    Why? So we can get crazed-up individuals running around with knives killing everybody and not be able to defend ourselves?


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •