Gun Control, who's for it?

Well sir, if you read the info on the link then I just have a simple question. How can someone be hypocritical about not defending a right which they don't believe exists? For all readers, from the "big bad ACLU":


"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

An organization is not hypocritical for not defending how YOU interpret 2nd amendment rights, they're not in any way obligated to do so. Any integrity of stance only has to be consistent according to their own interpretation to avoid hypocrisy. Yes, the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation, its not an absolute mandate from on high, and its sufficiently vague to require it.

You might also want to read the synopsis of the Supreme Court ruling on US vs Warin at the bottom of the link I provided. The ACLU aligns itself with this interpretation as well.

Explain if you please. Are you saying that if I try to close it, it won't close?

I addition do you really think this thread it THAT important that it will stay active?

Personally, yes, I do think so. There's been a lot of commentary on this thread that was thoughtfully worded and sincerely intended, and I don't think it's appropriate for any one person in this community to decide it's not useful and just nuke it out of existence.

Well, I have to agree with John Clements that we are just beating a dead horse here. That is the reason why I'd try to close it. Not because I think it's not "going my way". I feel I've had a lot more people on this thread in agreement with my opinion when it comes to guns. I was surprised to see John Clements makeing statements that I actually agree with. There are also many others who feel the 2nd amendment is clear in it's meaning and feel it's a constitutional right to not just have a gun but defend themselves with deadly force if need be. The point has been made.

I think we should keep this thread active. Given the nature of the Democratic majority, it is inevitable that we will see threats to our 2nd amendment right that will prompt additional comment. That comment may as well be posted on an ongoing thread rather than creating a new thread on an old topic.

Swanny

In addition, there are hundreds of threads in any site like this that have been inactive for a very long time, and they can always be "bumped up" if some new relevant development breaks, or some new person wants to contribute an opinion.

You say --

"Well, I have to agree with John Clements that we are just beating a dead horse here. That is the reason why I'd try to close it. Not because I think it's not "going my way". I feel I've had a lot more people on this thread in agreement with my opinion when it comes to guns. "

Fine, that's your opinion. Just don't put on an orange flight jumpsuit and stand on an aircraft carrier to declare it.

What ever!

Here's a quote I heard that put a smile on my face.


You cannot arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves, nor can you disarm a free people and expect them to remain free."

I can see why it makes you smile. But it's really just linguistic parlor tricks -- you can's assume that a neat sentence construction in which the second half flips the first half over has any special validity. Very few things are that easy.

Who said it, anyway? Not that the relative fame of the originator is an index of anything either . . .

I can see why it makes you smile. But it's really just linguistic parlor tricks -- you can's assume that a neat sentence construction in which the second half flips the first half over has any special validity. Very few things are that easy.

Who said it, anyway? Not that the relative fame of the originator is an index of anything either . . .

Actually the quote comes from a member of the US concealed carry organization. Just a quote from someone. No one famous. I actually came up with the phrase, God forbid I'll EVER have to use my gun. But God forbid I'm without it when my life relies on it.

So you're suggesting an armed people are more free? From whom? There's no logic which can prove an armed populace is freer from being victimized by one another. Its all assumptive, and amid all the statistics there are too many variables to draw any definitive conclusion. Its just as assumptive to say that the more arms the greater likelihood of a bloodbath. But we've been through all that before......

If the statement is to imply that by arms one is freer from the government, then I think Waco provided a graphic example of the degree to which one's possession of a few guns ensures defense against what wasn't even a dent in the National Guard armory. It took less to get Randy Weaver's 14 yr old kid killed. Unless one means death as the ultimate freedom, then I don't see how free the Davidians or the Weaver kid became through guns.

I sympathize with the spirit of quote, and certainly with the concern for freedom, but I have to agree with Stoirmeil.

Nova S. - If you think we're beating a dead horse here, I'm curious about why it always seems to be you who adds the next quote and comment or reiterates the same tired argument, even on other forums that don't have anything to do with guns. Like dead horses do you? Barbaro is fresh kill, get out your whips and chains dude. At least you and Barbaro have something in common, you both seem to be one trick ponies.

If I may be permitted my due time on the soap box upon which you have so vehemently harangued, I'd just mention a simple befuddlement. In recent decades we've seen the government be able to tap your phone, search your house and confine you without a warrant. We've allowed local law enforcement authorities to confiscate your home, car and freeze your bank account based on hearsay evidence alone - should your neighbor say she thinks you're growing pot in your basement, you're arrested and can't even access funds for a defense, for example. They can even sell your property and keep the funds. If you're released you must sign a paper promising not to sue before your property which wasn't sold is returned*. We've also seen the supreme court allow your property to be sold against your will to a developer since what he builds on it will provide more money in taxes. Their right to get richer off of your property supercedes your right to property at all.

Amid all these erosions of freedom in a country founded by rich farmers who were only disgruntled that their tea was taxed without their being represented in the government which levied it, its puzzling to me that your chief obsession is the potential loss of your own weaponry. Unless you live in south central LA and can't move, your concern for safety is exaggerated, and frankly I don't see the noble safeguarding of freedom that your arguments seem to proffer in a motivation which is nothing more than the vainglorious defense of your right to a hobby. Can we call it a day?

*source: "Lost Rights, The Destruction of American Liberty" by John Bovard

The bottom line here Antwn after your long drawn out post, if you don't like guns, fine. You don't have to have one. But to me and many many others the constitution is clear on this matter. To me NO one has ever come up with ANYTHING to make me think differently or to consider the point. I'm against abortion but I do understand it in cases where the womans health is at risk or if there was a rape. I don't agree with it but it is a good point. But as for guns? I've seen nothing that could alter my thinking on the topic.

I forgot to add, Waco and Ruby ridge were a tragedy. I think it was a total abuse of power on the Governments part not that these are the only 2 examples. I don't agree with David Koresh and his thinking at all and also the whole Waco massacre could have been avoided if they just picked up Koresh on his morning jog that was just a day earlier. Randy Weaver I consider a victim as well. But he more or less got off scott free except for the emotional scars he has to live with for the rest of his life. I don't agree with the way he was conducting his family life but he didn't deserve what happened. Both incidents are a very BAD thing!

Now back to the topic. Gun Control

By the way I researched John Bovard . He is pro-gun. I don't agree with EVERYTHING he says but I rank him in with John R. Lott. I do like him.