Most say it's the guns. I say, it's today's society

[Sam Fisher]

Good God....give it a rest already, Sam. Societal issues are most certainly a factor in the mindless violence that we see in today's America. I already made that point earlier in this thread and was vilified for it. I stand by my prior statements but is there no room at all for consideration of proposals that would possibly help prevent another Sandy Hook from happening that would not create a serious infringement upon the rights of those who want to own and use certain weapons in a legal manner? You NRA-types are a curious lot. You want an absolute right to access and use any gun that is available on the open market without any restrictions whatsoever....correct? :dunno: That's an unreasonable expectation that has precedent in other aspects of the constitution that should give you reason for pause.

Compare this stance to the the judicial interpretation of the first amendment. I have a right to freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the constitution. However, this right does not mean that I can scream "Fuck you!!!" at my neighbor over the fence without legal consequences. I cannot set up speakers outside my house and loudly blast whatever I choose across my neighborhood without experiencing the probable intervention of law enforcement. And, in the classic example used by the late, great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, I cannot indiscriminately yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater without being found in violation of the law.

My point is....the freedoms assured by the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Certain restrictions can and do apply to them within the bounds of reasonable consideration. The same type of restrictions can apply to guns without violating the intent of the second amendment and still provide a degree of protection for society that might help prevent such a tragedy as the one that took place last week at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Our founding fathers intended the constitution to be an evolving document. Hence, the reason for the elastic clause which states:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.

Is there not room for compromise on this issue? If not, how many more innocent people need to have their lives compromised without those like you possibly taking some degree of restriction into consideration? If even one life is saved in the process without creating an infringement on your right to buy and use guns in a legal manner, why would you not be in favor of it? :dunno:

Jagger... I don't see, nor do I understand the need to "compromise" on the Constitution / Bill of Rights". Personally, I am very responsible when it comes to my ownership of firearms. I pose no threat to anyone. Only if my family myself, or an innocent bystander is going to be accosted will I use my firearms. Until then, they don't get drawn from the holster.

And mark my words.... If just one Amendment gets eroded, you can bet the others will come under attack as well.

As you stated....

Compare this stance to the the judicial interpretation of the first amendment. I have a right to freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the constitution. However, this right does not mean that I can scream "Fuck you!!!" at my neighbor over the fence without legal consequences. I cannot set up speakers outside my house and loudly blast whatever I choose across my neighborhood without experiencing the probable intervention of law enforcement. And, in the classic example used by the late, great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, I cannot indiscriminately yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater without being found in violation of the law.

I understand your above example. However, some in society disregard that and do it anyway. Should we continue to punish them? Absolutely! But don't take away the freedom of expression from those who use it in a peaceful, respectful way. In other words, because a few assholes refuse to abide by laws, don't punish those who DO abide by the law, by taking away one of their Constitutional Rights.

 

[Johan]

And mark my words.... If just one Amendment gets eroded, you can bet the others will come under attack as well.

1933, the XVIIIth amendemnt hasn't been eroded but totally cancelled...

 

[Sam Fisher]

1933, the XVIIIth amendemnt hasn't been eroded but totally cancelled...

Thank you for making my case.

 

[Sam Fisher]

However, if you want to go even further when it comes to Gun Control, it is actually RACIST. Yes, Gun Control Laws are RACIST.

 

[Sam Fisher]

1933, the XVIIIth amendemnt hasn't been eroded but totally cancelled...

And look what happened to those FREED BLACK MEN and FREED BLACK WOMEN....

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html

http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/racist_roots_of_gun_control.htm

 

[Sam Fisher]

Careful what you wish for!

 

[Sam Fisher]

Florida man accused of killing neighbor with a hammer

THONOTOSASSA, Fla. – A Tampa-Bay area man who authorities say attacked his neighbor with a hammer has been charged with second degree murder with a weapon.

A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office press release says 28-year-old Jarrett Kyle Brooks was booked into jail late Saturday. It was not immediately known if he has an attorney.

Authorities say Brooks approached Jonathan Acree from behind at a Thonotosassa trailer park, striking him in the head and neck multiple times with a hammer.

Acree was pronounced dead at the hospital.

The sheriff's office SWAT team was called to the home where Brooks was barricaded. Authorities say he surrendered after tear gas was shot into the mobile home. There was no one else in the trailer.

Investigators have not released a motive for the attack.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/florida-man-accused-killing-neighbor-with-hammer/#ixzz2FR2IZnz4

Ban them! Or, in order to buy hammer you must show due cause for owning one, and you must go through a training class and, have a valid permit to own one.

*as JOHAN and others in here would say.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Do you really believe that one instance of a murder by hammer is exactly the same as thousands of murder by guns?

 

[Sam Fisher]

Do you really believe that one instance of a murder by hammer is exactly the same as thousands of murder by guns?

Do you really believe that one instance of a murder by hammer is somehow diminished because he wasn't killed by a firearm? Where's your compassion? Or, better yet.... where's your outrage that a person would do that to another human being?

 

[lurkingdirk]

Do you really believe that one instance of a murder by hammer is somehow diminished because he wasn't killed by a firearm? Where's your compassion? Or, better yet.... where's your outrage that a person would do that to another human being?

That completely dodged the question. Of course I'm outraged by the murder, but I didn't address that in my question. My question was does one isolated case involving a hammer demand the same reaction as a nation-wide problem with guns?

 

[Jagger69]

Jagger... I don't see, nor do I understand the need to "compromise" on the Constitution / Bill of Rights". Personally, I am very responsible when it comes to my ownership of firearms. I pose no threat to anyone. Only if my family myself, or an innocent bystander is going to be accosted will I use my firearms. Until then, they don't get drawn from the holster.

And mark my words.... If just one Amendment gets eroded, you can bet the others will come under attack as well.

I used the term "compromise" in reference to your position on this, not the government's. There is no "compromise" or "erosion" involved. It's a matter of judicial interpretation. The constitution is not this ironclad, rigid document. It is subject to change and interpretation as needed on a constant and continual basis. Laws passed by congress are subject to judicial review and, if found to be unconstitutional, will be nullified. That's what I meant by the bill of rights not being absolute....it is subject to interpretation that can and often is restrictive in some fashion without violating the intended spirit of those rights. We don't know if our founding fathers would want free and unbridled access to a weapon like an AR-15 since it obviously did not exist back when the amendment was enacted. Therefore, if more restrictive gun laws were passed, they would likewise be subject to judicial review.

I understand your above example. However, some in society disregard that and do it anyway. Should we continue to punish them? Absolutely! But don't take away the freedom of expression from those who use it in a peaceful, respectful way. In other words, because a few assholes refuse to abide by laws, don't punish those who DO abide by the law, by taking away one of their Constitutional Rights.

People disregard drunk driving laws too. Does that mean we shouldn't have them in place? Of course not. Do drunk driving laws take away my right to drink? Absolutely not. It only places a reasonable restriction on it. You are confusing restriction with revocation.

In the end, this debate really doesn't matter. You're definitely going to see a legislative fight to place restrictions on assault weapons before it is all said and done and, if it is passed, it will be up to the SCOTUS to decide on its constitutionality. Thanks for your reply.

 

[Sam Fisher]

We don't have a nation-wide problem with guns. We have a nation-wide problem with too many people not respecting life.

 

[lurkingdirk]

I certainly agree that there are too many people that don't respect life.

However, you have again side stepped the question, and, in doing so, gave me some ammunition for my argument. (See what I did there?) You posted that hammers were the problem. You were being satirical, of course, and mimicking the arguments currently made about guns. I merely pointed out that it was a false comparison, and asked if you really believed that your point actually was a valid one? Let's review:
One instance of murder by hammer.
Ten thousand instances of murder by handgun.

Do those things seem equal? Not a good argument. It proves nothing.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Actually, the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. They have liberal democratic institutions, but they're not a democracy. Neither is the US. We have a Democratic Republic, or a Constitutional Democracy, if you will. But both the US and the UK are quite free. I'm not sure what your definition of freedom is if you think the UK is "not free."



Yeah, I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but that's a pretty stupid statement. At the moment, the only thing I want to point out is that several of your fellow gun rights supporters in this thread and elsewhere have gone to great pains to insist that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." They (and I'm assuming, you also) don't want to be lumped in with sociopaths and criminals simply because you believe in a right to bear arms. And I think that's a fair point. People who don't "like" guns don't understand those who do, and that's a bias and it's not right to label people, directly or indirectly, as criminals simply because of a single belief they share in common with those who commit ghastly crimes.

But you can't have it both ways. Saying that our guns are what won our freedom is an insult to the memory of all who fought in the Revolutionary War, many of whom died in the service of a fledgling nation.

Guns don't defend our country, people do.

This is a well stated point.

My definition of freedom, is having a Government that can't take what you own, and tell you you can't hold it in your hand when ever you wish...or that I can't stop an intruder with the force needed to keep my family safe.

As far as the rest goes, you are 100% correct, which proves that freedom isn't free....it's expensive, and every life lost is precious. I feel my wife's is more so then mine, and mine more so then someone trying to do us harm. I guess we (the pro gun group) tend to get a little pissed, that it's automatically the fault of an inanimate object, and not the responsibility of the people that failed. This kid was trouble from the beginning, but his mother CHOOSE to own guns, Choose to teach him to shoot, and CHOOSE to allow him access to these firearms. As others have said, and I will repeat, I am responsible, my weapon is locked in a safe, when not on my person, and I mean 800lb fire proof safe, not a little dinky cabinet. I have no children, can't even remember when one was in the house. I do it to protect my investments, and to be sure if someone tries to steal one, they can't, and it can't be used for evil...yet I will be forced to continually answer the same tired questions about why I NEED that gun, or HOW COME you need that many bullets. No one is making efforts to chastise failed mental health professionals, or school security. Just blame the gun, and how many bullets it holds. It gets real old having to defend my freedoms CONSTANTLY. I don't believe for one second any gun law is passed for the safety of anyone, but the government that wants us to be more and more compliant, and less and less free. I can guarantee you that if they get their way, and are able to ban the future purchase and use of semi automatic weapons, the President's secret service detail won't be carrying revolvers. I guarantee the police departments won't be trading down to revolvers. Yet they want the American taxpayers...the ones that pay their salaries to be less defended, and expect us to hold their lives, and families as more precious. I can assure you, if a gunman was trying to kill my wife, and obamas...I would save my wife's life before hers, because they mean nothing to me, but my family does, and I would expect them to save their own, just like you would make that choice. So while you make some very valid points, and have stated them well....you can see, that it gets really frustrating dealing with this crap, especially when it isn't our fault, but we will ultimately pay. Then on top of it, you have people from other countries raggin on you, and they don't even live here, let alone know what it's like, or care to.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I certainly agree that there are too many people that don't respect life.

However, you have again side stepped the question, and, in doing so, gave me some ammunition for my argument. (See what I did there?) You posted that hammers were the problem. You were being satirical, of course, and mimicking the arguments currently made about guns. I merely pointed out that it was a false comparison, and asked if you really believed that your point actually was a valid one? Let's review:
One instance of murder by hammer.
Ten thousand instances of murder by handgun.

Do those things seem equal? Not a good argument. It proves nothing.

I think the message I'm making is.... there are bad, evil people in this world. And they will do whatever they want, regardless of any law that says it is against the law. Whether guns are totally eliminated from the face of the earth, some nut-job will find his own way to kill as many people as he possible can.

Imagine if EVERYONE in the United States NEVER went over the speed limit, never cut anyone off, never got road rage, never ever had to lock their car when they go to the store, never drove a car after consuming alcohol, and always yielded the right of way for the other person... how wonderful life would be.

Unfortunately, life as we know it isn't like that. Again, there are evil, mean, rotten people out there. They could care less if Dirk is a law abiding citizen just making his way through life as best and as easily as he can. If that person makes it his purpose in life to take your life, making new laws will NOT deter him from attempting to kill you.

Sad, but true.

 

[Johan]

And mark my words.... If just one Amendment gets eroded, you can bet the others will come under attack as well.

1933, the XVIIIth amendemnt hasn't been eroded but totally cancelled...

Thank you for making my case.

I'm not making you case. My point is, The XVIII amendment's been canceled in 1933 and ever snce not other amendment has been. Your saying that if they go for the IIth amendment, then they'd go for others and the whole Constitution will fall, History proved you wrong : An amendment has been cancelled 80 years ago annd the Constiturion still stands, not other amendment have ben cancelled.

And look what happened to those FREED BLACK MEN and FREED BLACK WOMEN....

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html

http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/racist_roots_of_gun_control.htm

What ?
What does black men have to do with the cancellation of the XVIIIth amendment ?! The XVIIIth amendment was the Prohibition amendement, it doesn't refers to black people !
You stupid cunt don't even know your own beloved Constitution !

 

[lurkingdirk]

I think the message I'm making is.... there are bad, evil people in this world. And they will do whatever they want, regardless of any law that says it is against the law. Whether guns are totally eliminated from the face of the earth, some nut-job will find his own way to kill as many people as he possible can.

Imagine if EVERYONE in the United States NEVER went over the speed limit, never cut anyone off, never got road rage, never ever had to lock their car when they go to the store, never drove a car after consuming alcohol, and always yielded the right of way for the other person... how wonderful life would be.

Unfortunately, life as we know it isn't like that. Again, there are evil, mean, rotten people out there. They could care less if Dirk is a law abiding citizen just making his way through life as best and as easily as he can. If that person makes it his purpose in life to take your life, making new laws will NOT deter him from attempting to kill you.

Sad, but true.

Fair points. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I have lived in countries that have very strict gun laws. They don't have the same instances of mass killings like this. Certainly, there are examples of killings in other nations, but it is irrefutable that the United States has more tragic events of this nature. Is that due to the availability of the guns? The laws permitting people to own/carry guns? I can't say, either way.

To sum up my own position, I believe that no one who is not a service person or police officer should have access to anything but guns for hunting. That eliminates automatic, semi automatic, and hand guns. And the guns they have need to be registered and licensed, and kept in a safe that is far removed from the ammo.

I realise that my opinion is vastly different than most people in this country. I have never heard a compelling reason that everyone should be allowed to carry a handgun. Not even this tragic, terrible current event. Seeing this did not make me think, "boy, I wish the teachers were carrying guns to work." No, it made me think, "boy, I wish the shooter did not have access to guns at all." It's a radically different perspective, and I'm not sure you appreciate it. I have close friends who carry guns. Through a great deal of reasoned discussion and explanation of reasoning, they have all independently agreed not to carry into my house, in order to respect my perspective on this. I did not make this demand on them, it was their decision. Would you make the same concession for a close friend?

 

[Sam Fisher]

I'm not making you case. My point is, The XVIII amendment's been canceled in 1933 and ever snce not other amendment has been. Your saying that if they go for the IIth amendment, then they'd go for others and the whole Constitution will fall, History proved you wrong : An amendment has been cancelled 80 years ago annd the Constiturion still stands, not other amendment have ben cancelled.


What ?
What does black men have to do with the cancellation of the XVIIIth amendment ?! The XVIIIth amendment was the Prohibition amendement, it doesn't refers to black people !
You stupid cunt don't even know your own beloved Constitution !

Nice intelligent choice of slur words, little man. Do you talk to people like that in real life too? I doubt it.

And, when I made the reference about the blacks, I was referring to the 13th Amendment, not the 18th Amendment, that you cited.

After the Emancipation Act, blacks were NOT allowed to own firearms.

 

[Sam Fisher]

http://mrctv.org/videos/protesters-blame-nra-sandy-hook-massacre-language-warning

 

[eponymous]

This is a well stated point.

My definition of freedom, is having a Government that can't take what you own, and tell you you can't hold it in your hand when ever you wish...or that I can't stop an intruder with the force needed to keep my family safe.

As far as the rest goes, you are 100% correct, which proves that freedom isn't free....it's expensive, and every life lost is precious. I feel my wife's is more so then mine, and mine more so then someone trying to do us harm. I guess we (the pro gun group) tend to get a little pissed, that it's automatically the fault of an inanimate object, and not the responsibility of the people that failed. This kid was trouble from the beginning, but his mother CHOOSE to own guns, Choose to teach him to shoot, and CHOOSE to allow him access to these firearms. As others have said, and I will repeat, I am responsible, my weapon is locked in a safe, when not on my person, and I mean 800lb fire proof safe, not a little dinky cabinet. I have no children, can't even remember when one was in the house. I do it to protect my investments, and to be sure if someone tries to steal one, they can't, and it can't be used for evil...yet I will be forced to continually answer the same tired questions about why I NEED that gun, or HOW COME you need that many bullets. No one is making efforts to chastise failed mental health professionals, or school security. Just blame the gun, and how many bullets it holds. It gets real old having to defend my freedoms CONSTANTLY. I don't believe for one second any gun law is passed for the safety of anyone, but the government that wants us to be more and more compliant, and less and less free. I can guarantee you that if they get their way, and are able to ban the future purchase and use of semi automatic weapons, the President's secret service detail won't be carrying revolvers. I guarantee the police departments won't be trading down to revolvers. Yet they want the American taxpayers...the ones that pay their salaries to be less defended, and expect us to hold their lives, and families as more precious. I can assure you, if a gunman was trying to kill my wife, and obamas...I would save my wife's life before hers, because they mean nothing to me, but my family does, and I would expect them to save their own, just like you would make that choice. So while you make some very valid points, and have stated them well....you can see, that it gets really frustrating dealing with this crap, especially when it isn't our fault, but we will ultimately pay. Then on top of it, you have people from other countries raggin on you, and they don't even live here, let alone know what it's like, or care to.

I appreciate your position, but as You Might have guessed, we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

We curtail people's freedoms all the time. We don't let them drive without a license, we don't let them purchase narcotics without a prescription, etc. We don't allow some things at all, e.g., buying explosives, or human organs or slaves. And even the things we do allow without strict oversight or regulation don't include the unbridled freedom to do whatever one wishes. According to your definition of liberty, it would be okay for someone to shoot another person in the head if he trespasses on their lawn. I'm sure you wouldn't personally do that, but your operating definition doesn't prohibit it because the freedom to protect one's family is absolute and no restrictions means no one can go too far.

One other comment. You said:

...if a gunman was trying to kill my wife, and obamas...I would save my wife's life before hers, because they mean nothing to me...

Again, I appreciate where this sentiment is coming from, especially in light of the "don't blame law abiding citizens" & "self-defense is a constitutional right" arguments, but if you truly don't understand how statements like this one can lead others to lump you into a class of people you'd rather not be associated with, then let me simply remark that anyone who says that other people's lives mean "nothing" to them automatically raises some red flags. Once again, I don't think your point is lost, but at the very least, you have overstated it.