The Government is NOT going to TAKE PEOPLES GUNS!

mickeyrat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

unsung wrote:

I thought I was fairly clear. The State can do what it needs to do as long as it does not infringe upon a person's right to defend themselves. The State can regulate trade within the state, the Federal Government cannot tell a state what to do, in this case, as long as the State keeps it in it's borders and doesn't bring outside States into the transaction (for lack of a better word).

the state is saying it will regulate the trade of a particular weapon. the ability of a person in that state to protect home person and family isnt diminished for them not being allowed this type, style or class of weapon. They have the right (the state) to define such, do they not?

I still cant get past the "a well regulated militia"start of the 2nd amendment. Nor do I believe I should . Since the courts have effectively changed the intended original meaning of the right(note: as I understand it) , then its up to congress to move to further amend this amendment , keeping inline with court OPINION. Keeping in mind that opinion changes. As evidenced by recent rulings on this.

Here is a definition of "regulated" I got from wiki. I will research a bit more for a period definiton.

Regulation may refer to the following:
1.A process of the promulgation, monitoring, and enforcement of rules, established by primary and/or delegated legislation.
2.A written instrument containing rules having the force of law.

Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility. Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations that bind many parties (for example, "insurance regulations" that arise out of contracts between insurers and their insureds), self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, third-party regulation, certification, accreditation or market regulation. In its legal sense regulation can and should be distinguished from primary legislation (by Parliament of elected legislative body) on the one hand and judge-made law on the other.[1]

Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.



if we can agree this is a reasonable difinition of the that word , then it directly contradicts the "shall not be infriged" part of the second, doesnt it? My preference is to read an amendment in its entirety on its face. While I'm no legal scholar I believe that is where many legal decision derive from?

I'm curious, where do you stand again on backround checks ? I dont recall.

You're actually wrong, mickeyrat. And I have trouble concealing my irritation with folks who can't fathom the notion of antiquated speech, particularly as relates to our constitution. But here it is for you, http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html, and you can fin the same on plenty of non gun sites. You can find multiple other colonial uses of the same phrase "we'll regulated" and ALL it has to do with is THE PROPER DISCIPLINE of troops.

It isn't referring to regulations. It isn't referring to written laws concerning such. It is a simple antiquated phrase that was used with regularity to indicate that something was in ship shape. It means to have a militia that is fit to fight. That is why the words make sense together. It is the ONLY way the amendment even has a meaning. The need for properly disciplined troops being paramount to liberty, citizens must own guns so they can train. You can't have a well regulated militia made of a bunch of irregular soldiers (ie. common folk. Citizens. Farmers) unless those irregulars are given EVERYDAY access to guns for firing. For training. For maintaining their discipline so they could be "we'll regulated" when the time for their need came. ... And please don't cop to the next lame depravation, which would be to tell us all that such need dissappeared win the creation of the regular army. ... Which was actually part of the fear that induced the writers to include such a clause. . . The need to counter an ill advised federal army. The need for states to secure their liberty, either against foreign aggression OR federal agitation.

I see that. Isnt that role/need served by an individual states national guard? That is a modern "well regulated militia" .
wasnt it found that the states militias of the day made up of these citizens were inadequate to the task during the WAR OF 1812? From that , it was determined that a standing Army was necessary?



the access to the guns used in tragedies we've seen in the last decade or so were in large part legally obtained weapons by the registered or not owner. Kept in such a way as to allow these weapons to be gotten and used by someone else. Seems to me rather undiciplined with a of lack of adequete training in securement as well that these weapons could so easily fall into the hands of someone within the same household in many instances.

DriftingByTheStorm

mickeyrat wrote:

I see that. Isnt that role/need served by an individual states national guard? That is a modern "well regulated militia" .
wasnt it found that the states militias of the day made up of these citizens were inadequate to the task during the WAR OF 1812? From that , it was determined that a standing Army was necessary?



the access to the guns used in tragedies we've seen in the last decade or so were in large part legally obtained weapons by the registered or not owner. Kept in such a way as to allow these weapons to be gotten and used by someone else. Seems to me rather undiciplined with a of lack of adequete training in securement as well that these weapons could so easily fall into the hands of someone within the same household in many instances.

This would be my response to you, Mickeyrat:
Pew Trust News: Governors Lose in Power Struggle Over National Guard

To the dismay of the nation's governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor's head and call up National Guard troops

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October [2007] tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies.

Do you not think that in the case of some sort of insurrection, conflict between the states and the federal government, that the federal government would not just declare a state of emergency in any and all such States, and then order those respective state National Guard troops to do the bidding of the FEDERAL government ???

unsung

The General Government will continue to take power away from the states in its quest for domination. This is exactly why our country was founded, we were tired of having a King.

Cosmo

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Do you not think that in the case of some sort of insurrection, conflict between the states and the federal government, that the federal government would not just declare a state of emergency in any and all such States, and then order those respective state National Guard troops to do the bidding of the FEDERAL government ???

...
Are you talking about armed insurrection... or if Arizona decided to send National Guard troops into California to attack and kill U.S. Naval/Marine personel in at MCAS Mira Mar?
The National Guard is in place to help American citizens in case of emergency... like earthquakes or floods or hurricanes or riots. They are not there so the Governor of Arizona can wage war.

mickeyrat

and uninformed voters will continue to vote for the guy with the best slanted commercials and who has the most business financial backing.

mickeyrat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I see that. Isnt that role/need served by an individual states national guard? That is a modern "well regulated militia" .
wasnt it found that the states militias of the day made up of these citizens were inadequate to the task during the WAR OF 1812? From that , it was determined that a standing Army was necessary?



the access to the guns used in tragedies we've seen in the last decade or so were in large part legally obtained weapons by the registered or not owner. Kept in such a way as to allow these weapons to be gotten and used by someone else. Seems to me rather undiciplined with a of lack of adequete training in securement as well that these weapons could so easily fall into the hands of someone within the same household in many instances.

This would be my response to you, Mickeyrat:
Pew Trust News: Governors Lose in Power Struggle Over National Guard

To the dismay of the nation's governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor's head and call up National Guard troops

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October [2007] tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies.

Do you not think that in the case of some sort of insurrection, conflict between the states and the federal government, that the federal government would not just declare a state of emergency in any and all such States, and then order those respective state National Guard troops to do the bidding of the FEDERAL government ???

per the constitution isnt the fed allowed to put down insurrection?

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat wrote:

and uninformed voters will continue to vote for the guy with the best slanted commercials and who has the most business financial backing.

or in rick perry's case, the guy with the best hair...

goingtoverona

rick perry's hair could lift a car off a baby.....do it on it's way to church.

mickeyrat

letter to the editor of The Columbus Dispatch. Sounds worth considering. Given liability ins is required to own a pit bull ,also used as protection , at least here in Ohio. It makes sense.


Why not treat guns like cars?








Saturday March 2, 2013 5:21 AM






Supporters of the free-enterprise system insist that it is self-regulating and should be applied wherever possible. Why not put this system to work on gun control, too?

We have to have a license and liability insurance to drive or own a car, which can cause grievous injury or death when abused or mishandled or merely because of bad luck. Guns are much the same.

A reasonable requirement would be that anyone possessing a gun must be licensed and have appropriate liability insurance and, of course, that a firearm cannot be purchased without proof of a license and insurance, as is the case with a car. Insurance companies will see an enormous opportunity for new income streams and will insist on thorough background checks before issuing gun insurance.

Do you think they would issue insurance to violent felons or the mentally ill? Carry a gun without insurance and it will be confiscated until insurance is obtained.

When someone is stopped while driving without insurance, is his car not impounded until proof of insurance is provided? Doing the same with guns would not be interfering with one’s right to bear arms, just requiring reasonable insurance to protect and/or compensate those who might be hurt by one’s negligence or criminal activity.

It will have the additional positive impact of increasing the costs of gun ownership. One would need a “rider” for each additional gun to ensure that one keeps it in his possession and under control. This could substantially increase our national gross domestic product.

Perhaps ammunition and larger magazines should be insured, as well. The purchase of more-lethal ammunition would require higher coverage. The families of the Newtown, Conn., victims likely have no access to any automatic compensation for the deaths of their loved ones. If the killer’s mother had been required to carry insurance on each of her firearms, she likely would have had fewer firearms or not had an “assault weapon,” which logically would require higher premiums.

And to avoid even higher premiums, she would have had to demonstrate her firearms were not available to her troubled son.

Who can object to that?

If one’s response to this proposal is that guns are too dangerous to be required to be insured or licensed, then what does that say?

MICHAEL GREENMAN
Westerville

unsung

Insuring a natural, inherent right? That's rich. The level of being a moron has reached new lows.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Insuring a natural, inherent right? That's rich. The level of being a moron has reached new lows.

Edit.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Insuring a natural, inherent right? That's rich. The level of being a moron has reached new lows.

Can you explain 'natural' right to me?

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

Insuring a natural, inherent right? That's rich. The level of being a moron has reached new lows.

there are those of us who veiw the 2nd amendment the other way. As deemed to be a memeber of a state militia, who opinions are just as valid as yours.

Frankly how is else is a victim to be compensated from the misuse use and mishandling and misappropriation of a firearm in a law abiding persons home?

Gun owners who FAIL to properly secure their firearms and reasonably prevent them for falling into the hands of others should be jailed as liable/complicit for the subsequent actions of others.

Horos

mickeyrat wrote:

unsung wrote:

Insuring a natural, inherent right? That's rich. The level of being a moron has reached new lows.

there are those of us who veiw the 2nd amendment the other way. As deemed to be a memeber of a state militia, who opinions are just as valid as yours.

Frankly how is else is a victim to be compensated from the misuse use and mishandling and misappropriation of a firearm in a law abiding persons home?

Gun owners who FAIL to properly secure their firearms and reasonably prevent them for falling into the hands of others should be jailed as liable/complicit for the subsequent actions of others.

I submitted the insurance idea a couple of months back.

I too was deemed a moron.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Bottom line:

Any compromise at all is viewed as a threat and met with resistance.

Is it any wonder though? Fuck, man. Look at the level of paranoia that some idiots refer to when pounding their fists on tables and demanding their right to bear whatever they want in the name of defence. It's so extreme, I truly have a hard time accepting the sincerity of it. I mean... really?

There is a faction of gun supporters that come across as backwater buffoons when they continually deny problems that are as obvious as a massive pimple on the end of Barbara Streisand's nose. Sheer stubborn stupidity: there is no other way to put it.

I've gone through a spectrum of emotions dealing with this issue. Started off angry, became frustrated and then exasperated, became saddened, and now... I have come to appreciate the comedy in the situation. It's truly laughable when some spout their crap... believe their crap... and influence others to believe their crap. Lost in their confused and narrow-minded mentality, the extremists- and even some moderates- have no idea how they present themselves. They are like the anorexic girl who stares in the mirror thinking she's obese, when the rest of the world sees hip bones and ribs. Their mentality is so fixed that they are incapable of seeing reality for what it truly is.

The situation points to the failings of a democracy. How long does the intelligent and reasonable faction of society allow for such idiocy to perpetuate itself? A nice, kind King seems so much better to me than a democracy littered and influenced by- to use the word of the moment- morons who prevent progression.

whgarrett

Give it up Thirty Bills Unpaid. You are NOT getting our guns! :nono:

Thirty Bills Unpaid

whgarrett wrote:

Give it up Thirty Bills Unpaid. You are NOT getting our guns! :nono:

Aaaaa Caaaamaaan.

mickeyrat

so if in 1999 Universal Background checks with NO loopholes are the right and reasonable way to stem the tide of illegal access to guns according to Wayne LaPierre why is that now in 2013 that its the nightmare?

Isnt it reasonable to assume that if no checks are needed at gunshows then access to an unlimited amount of guns , as of now legal, are being purchased with the express purpose of illegal resale on the street? That its further reasonable top assume that if those checks are in place with the kind of registration being proposed that this is a good means of stopping such people who DO in fact make purchases of that type to sell on the black market?

Think that one of the main reasons why the murder rate is what it is In a place like Chicago? A person can drive 30 -40 minutes away to Gary In, gunshows to make these purchases?

Havent researched it myself, but I heard on an NPR show(This American Life did a story about violence and gangs at a Chi H.S that saw 29 current or former students dead or injured in the preceding year) that a guy was arrested with 2 duffle bags full of gunshow purchased weapons that were to be sold on the street.

unsung

The funny thing is most gun control bills were actually written by the NRA. Even the Brady Bill was written at a stricter level than what the Brady camp had in mind after the NRA had its' hands on it. The gun control crowd hates the NRA, but doesn't realize that they HAVE compromised many times which is why the pro gun people that are in the know and not just blind followers hate the NRA. I was a member for about six months and then I learned some things that forced me to cancel my membership.

Did you know that the NRA endorsed Harry Reid over TEA Party favorite Sharron Angle? You know why? It's because Harry Reid got some huge gun range build with federal dollars. They do compromise, much too much.


I so very much prefer Gun Owner's of America.

unsung

mickeyrat wrote:

Think that one of the main reasons why the murder rate is what it is In a place like Chicago? A person can drive 30 -40 minutes away to Gary In, gunshows to make these purchases?

GANGS. Throw them in prison for 30 years and the murders will dwindle immediately. And your facts are not exactly correct, even at gun shows paperwork is kept, and until the Supreme Court overturned the Chicago handgun ban people would not sell to those with a Chicago address.

Or do you really think gang bangers go to legitimate gun shows to purchase their weapons?