This is what I did with my afternoon.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

sure. But that took quiet a few people to pull off. Here in America one guy walking into a college class room, supermarket, movie theater or kindergarten school can kill 29 all by himself. A dozen kooks with 3D printed high capacity... oh boy.

p.s.
for the record I think gun control laws are pointless. state borders are as air-tight as a collander. Legally purchased guns in VA can easily end up in the NYC black market.

Flip side. One guy with one gun and one bullet can stop the guy with the high-cap mags ('banana clips' for all the MSNBC watchers) and semi auto rifle ('military-style assault weapon' for that same crowd) before a shot is fired.

And not the printed gun thing again.....

He used a nail for a firing pin, and it was single use, so no such thing as high capacity printed gun. I can do better with oak or a steel pipe (or pressure cooker). And what does a 3d printer cost? Remember all the Glock hype about a "plastic gun" when they never did get through a single metal detector? We may as well ban phasers unless they only produce them with stun power and they don't have a selector switch for kill.

As for state borders, any controlled item like guns or drugs or pills or fruit can be illegally transported anywhere in the US and I do not look forward to state border checks. Maybe patrol your own streets and enforce existing laws and put thugs away for longer before trampling on my rights? If someone is willing to shoot a store clerk in the face for $30 in till, are they obeying any law at all? Seems those laws only apply to me.

Sorry, but that's how the constitution was written. It may have indeed intended a citizen army, but they also had no grocery stores. Was one guy supposed to be a designated hunter for everyone, or do we suppose that right may have also covered a person's right to eat meat? Hmmmm, doesn't say. We give them credit for being so smart, but complain this is so vague.

[Lobo1186]

I think what is cool about Guns and cars. Specifically, for us here guns and Boxsters is that in the United States we have a completely different mentality about them.

I was reading an editorial and a foreign car maker sent a designer here to try to understand why Americans care about things like cup holders and the like in cars. When he returned after traveling all over he commented something to the effect that the USA is so big and the cities are generally so spread out that you cannot help but see your car as a place you spend significant time and so eating, drinking and focusing on things other than pure driving are a must.

With guns, I have met a few military people in my life from our allies. Keep in mind that our military guys are generally the biggest proponents of firearms in this country. (war and the military is the sole reason for the explosion of the AR styled rifle phenomenon.) I was chastised on multiple occasions by guys carrying their full auto service weapon about how crazy Americans are for wanting to have AR styled weapons. To me I just wanted to say look at you! To them they saw no issue at all because they were in the military and that line between civilian and military is so stark they do not see the need for citizens to have anything near what the military has.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Timco

Sorry, but that's how the constitution was written. It may have indeed intended a citizen army, but they also had no grocery stores. Was one guy supposed to be a designated hunter for everyone, or do we suppose that right may have also covered a person's right to eat meat? Hmmmm, doesn't say. We give them credit for being so smart, but complain this is so vague.

The explicit language in the Constitution was by design. If the founding fathers wanted no limits to gun ownership they would not have bothered to condition it any way. Why condition gun rights but every other Constitutional right stated therein is not? You have the right to vote, for its own sake, not for you to join the Whig party or the Federalists, it's entirely, and only up to you to decide how you use that right. You have the right to free speech, not to voice an anti-monarchist view, but to use free speech however you wish, without condition. You have the right to practice religion, not for the purpose of being a Catholic or Puritan, but to simply use your right to pray or not to pray, there's no condition whatsoever. The founding father's were clearly trying to make a point in stating a singular purpose for the right to bear arms.


At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture. Once you've got hand guns into the hundreds of millions the laws become inherently ineffective. Legislative action and funding to enforce it becomes a waste of money and time because with that much supply $20 will get you a handgun anytime of the day in a city like Newark despite the state's severe sentencing guidelines. And frankly if any actual gun control ever were to take place it would nearly impossible to enforce and even with new laws you would still have more access to more types of guns and ammunition than any other country in the world that isn't run by Somali warlords. And really fights over this issue only polarize the country when there are enough things that the corrupt political parties of America can actually agree on. But sometimes I think the politicians like to rattle the cages of the 2nd Am simply to increase political donations and drive sales to the gun manufacturers that support their party. It's been workign like a charm so far, just look at SWHC, up like 300% since the '12 election.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The explicit language in the Constitution was by design. If the founding fathers wanted no limits to gun ownership they would not have bothered to condition it any way. Why condition gun rights but every other Constitutional right stated therein is not? You have the right to vote, for its own sake, not for you to join the Whig party or the Federalists, it's entirely, and only up to you to decide how you use that right. You have the right to free speech, not to voice an anti-monarchist view, but to use free speech however you wish, without condition. You have the right to practice religion, not for the purpose of being a Catholic or Puritan, but to simply use your right to pray or not to pray, there's no condition whatsoever. The founding father's were clearly trying to make a point in stating a singular purpose for the right to bear arms.


At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture. Once you've got hand guns into the hundreds of millions the laws become inherently ineffective. Legislative action and funding to enforce it becomes a waste of money and time because with that much supply $20 will get you a handgun anytime of the day in a city like Newark despite the state's severe sentencing guidelines. And frankly if any actual gun control ever were to take place it would nearly impossible to enforce and even with new laws you would still have more access to more types of guns and ammunition than any other country in the world that isn't run by Somali warlords. And really fights over this issue only polarize the country when there are enough things that the corrupt political parties of America can actually agree on. But sometimes I think the politicians like to rattle the cages of the 2nd Am simply to increase political donations and drive sales to the gun manufacturers that support their party. It's been workign like a charm so far, just look at SWHC, up like 300% since the '12 election.

"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."

What if this militia also includes my right to preserve my freedoms against my own government? Seems we did just that when our previous gov taxed without rep. What if it was meant to keep our own gov honest?

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture.

Intent... Intent is so important but impossible to divine once the opportunity to know it has passed. We have some writings from our founding fathers which can help us to understand but there will always be argument.

I believe that they intended to keep weapons in the hands of citizens as a means to fight tyranny. As we all know, the first battle of the Revolution was when the Brits tried to take a strategic colonial stockpile of weapons. The lesson being the only freedoms a person has is one they have the ability to fight for.

This ideology is what makes us as you say a gun-owning culture.

There are only two ways of dealing with people, persuasion or force. The first amendment protects persuasion and the second amendment protects force.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

Intent... Intent is so important but impossible to divine once the opportunity to know it has passed. We have some writings from our founding fathers which can help us to understand but there will always be argument.

I believe that they intended to keep weapons in the hands of citizens as a means to fight tyranny. As we all know, the first battle of the Revolution was when the Brits tried to take a strategic colonial stockpile of weapons. The lesson being the only freedoms a person has is one they have the ability to fight for.

This ideology is what makes us as you say a gun-owning culture.

There are only two ways of dealing with people, persuasion or force. The first amendment protects persuasion and the second amendment protects force.

As a matter of Constitutional writing, and the issue of gun ownership aside for a second, the founding fathers were very specific when they wanted to be and other times they were intentionally vague. They knew what they were doing, which is really amazing looking back 300+ years. The second Amendment is one that was written specifically, and addresses a group right, which is precisely why it was conditioned.
The founding fathers wrote individual rights in absolute terms to keep challengers of their writing from embarking on the "what if's" or "they meant this". They made this distinction with full understanding of the British tyranny, yet they still did not author the 2nd Amendment as an absolute and unconditioned individual right. If the right to bear arms was meant to be an indvidual right they would not have bothered to mention militias in the first place, since it could be inferred that an armed militia was a utility of an individual (i.e. uncontioned) right to bear arms. Instead we are arguing the reverse, that the group right to have an armed militia can be interpreted as and individual right. But again that's not at all they way they wrote it. And they semed fully aware of the possibiliity of re-interpretation, like we are doing now, since they made it a point to be absolute and unconditional with regard to invidual rights. The pivotal queston still remains, why didn't they do this with regard to gun ownership as well?

Aside, I don't have a problem with some guy owning as many guns as he wishes. Statiscally, most aren't nuts and planning on walking into a kindergarten or movie theater to waste everyone in the whole room. But neither do I believe they are correct in stating that they, as individuals, have a Constitutional protection, if we take the founding fathers' written words at face value. WHich is kind of the whole point of the Constitution writing exercise.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

As a matter of Constitutional writing, and the issue of gun ownership aside for a second, the founding fathers were very specific when they wanted to be and other times they were intentionally vague. They knew what they were doing, which is really amazing looking back 300+ years. The second Amendment is one that was written specifically, and addresses a group right, which is precisely why it was conditioned.
The founding fathers wrote individual rights in absolute terms to keep challengers of their writing from embarking on the "what if's" or "they meant this". They made this distinction with full understanding of the British tyranny, yet they still did not author the 2nd Amendment as an absolute and unconditioned individual right. If the right to bear arms was meant to be an indvidual right they would not have bothered to mention militias in the first place, since it could be inferred that an armed militia was a utility of an individual (i.e. uncontioned) right to bear arms. Instead we are arguing the reverse, that the group right to have an armed militia can be interpreted as and individual right. But again that's not at all they way they wrote it. And they semed fully aware of the possibiliity of re-interpretation, like we are doing now, since they made it a point to be absolute and unconditional with regard to invidual rights. The pivotal queston still remains, why didn't they do this with regard to gun ownership as well?

Aside, I don't have a problem with some guy owning as many guns as he wishes. Statiscally, most aren't nuts and planning on walking into a kindergarten or movie theater to waste everyone in the whole room. But neither do I believe they are correct in stating that they, as individuals, have a Constitutional protection, if we take the founding fathers' written words at face value. WHich is kind of the whole point of the Constitution writing exercise.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Allow me to respectfully disagree that it is not an individual right. The people are a group of individuals. They have a right to free speech, keep and bear arms etc. Bill of right protect the individual from the govt. The govt. is subordinate to the individual. Govt. was sending troops to confiscate weapons and ammo when the "shot fired around the world" was first discharged. (seems like we may need a second shot to get the current crop of politicos to start paying attention but I digress). The founders were wary of a standing army as it took citizens taking up arms to throw the British out of the colonies. It seems to me that after all this the right to keep and bear arms would not be an individual right? If not, who would grant the collective right, the govt.? Not hardly as they would be the entity doing the infringing. State of the art military weapons were always supposed to be in the hands of the public and the public would form their own militia's. Do not confuse this with the Nat. guard which was not formed until sometime in the 1930's and can be federalized by the govt. to serve its ends and not that of the populations. The minute man went to the house to secure his firearm before joining his fellow militia men to fight he did not go to the govt. armory to sign out for a weapon. I spent 6 years in the PA Natl. guard and know what a locked arms room looks like.

As far as the so called "gun lobby" goes it really is the Bill of Rights lobby. If the only thing that gives teeth to the people to resist tyrants is the 2nd Amendment then it must by its very nature be an individual right. If the militia is now the Natl. Guard, as some suggest, it is an arm of the govt. if federalized and therefore counter to the ability to resist. As an aside the 2nd amendment is a check and balance to govt. not a recreational document allowing the citizens to go deer hunting. Self defense is a given and needs no apology. "Self preservation is the first law of nature", as my old elementary school principal was fond of stating.

I have enjoyed your perspective on this debate as you seem to have done your homework and have a sense of historical perspective. Why it is important to our shared interest in Boxsters is that if we lose our freedom and are dictated to by the likes of the EPA etc. we won't be sharing the experience of driving around in them as they will be legislated out of existence.

Notice to those who find this thread offensive, just delete it or don't read it. Do not take the usual progressive tack of trying to suppress it., OK?

Respectfully, AKL

[doragman]

Allen K Littlefield - excellent perspective and discussion .... you give me hope that all is not lost in your part of this country that seems to vote government has all the answers.