Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Topic: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms? (Read 335346 times)

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #575 – 2014-09-14, 15:19:23

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-13, 19:33:35

(Hint: The 1st Amendment means what it says, and I accept that.) Hideous or not, the KKK still has the same freedom of speech as any other; your opprobrium does not translate to an exception to a clear constitutional right!

In fact, I agree. But the point is that you can dig court cases to use against any amendment. That one can controversial based on who the plaintives were. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything especially bad about 14th amendment. Unfortunately the behavior of some states in deliberately attempting to disenfranchise the voting rights and equal opportunity in education serves as proof that it's need.

I did not forget due process part, in fact I brought it up in the post. My attention span is fine and lasts years (in fact, I had to remind you, Smiley and Howie of posts you made sometimes years ago. However, working on yours might be a great opportunity for self-improvement. This means that an all out gun grab is against the the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendment. The 14th expands on the 5th by making it clear that an individual state can't deprive a person of his property without due process. Again, what's so odious about that?

Right now the pendulum is swinging in favor of gun rights, but it can reverse direction. Precedent is is not really law in the sense that a judge can go against it and provide a strong argument for doing so. Therefore, in theory the precedent of finding favor of the gun owners can be stop in its tracks with a single well-written and constitutionally correct decision. Please don't argue that a ruling against the secondment amendment can't be constitutionally correct, because past cases show otherwise according to the understanding of the constitution in generations past. That being the case, you'd want it strengthened not only on a second amendment basis but 14th amendment one in to guard against a judge deciding that the former amendment only applies to the Federal government (and a strong case can be made about that being technically correct.)

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #576 – 2014-09-14, 16:42:10

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-09-14, 07:19:23

I did not forget due process part, in fact I brought it up in the post.

And then promptly ignored it!

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-09-14, 07:19:23

I had to remind you, Smiley and Howie of posts you made sometimes years ago.

But -par for the course- you don't know where; and you usually get the content wrong...

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-09-14, 07:19:23

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything especially bad about 14th amendment.

As an authoritative and controlling rationale for obviating other portions of the Constitution, it is unparalleled! And the form of argument it encourages leads away from "the rule of law" and towards "the rule of men"...
Your view of precedent is odd; indeed, it could be described as incoherent.
Where, Sang, in the Constitution is the "right" to abortion on demand? The "right" to same-sex "marriage"? The "anchor baby" interpretation of citizenship and naturalization?
Note that the 14th Amendment's incorporation theory provides such a muddle that racial preferences have been successfully installed and banned on its basis!
And you see nothing "bad" about that?

You're familiar with the truism, that a false premise implies everything?

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #577 – 2014-09-15, 01:12:27

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-14, 16:42:10

And then promptly ignored it!

It's all my fault for assuming that you would remember the amendment and associate due process with it

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-14, 16:42:10

As an authoritative and controlling rationale for obviating other portions of the Constitution, it is unparalleled! And the form of argument it encourages leads away from "the rule of law" and towards "the rule of men"...

Hello, Mcfly? The paragraph in question basically takes the 5th amendment and clarifies that it applies to the states.

Fifth amendment:

Quote

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Note the last parts of it. Got it? Didn't think so, but let's move on anyway.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment:

Quote

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does had equal protection under the law, but the part we're talking about is being deprived of property. All the amendment does in that case, despite what the idiotic right-wing blogs tell you, is makes it clear that the state can't deprive you of property without due process of law.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-14, 16:42:10

Your view of precedent is odd; indeed, it could be described as incoherent.

No. It's called learning how precedent actually works. If a judge simply throws precedent out, yes is decision and possibly his position is in jeopardy. But if he can explain himself as described above, he can break precedent. Just because a judge rules one way now, thus establishing a precedent, it doesn't mean judges have to rule the same way a couple generations from now when the understanding of the law or the amendment shifted somewhat.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-14, 16:42:10

Where, Sang, in the Constitution is the "right" to abortion on demand? The "right" to same-sex "marriage"? The "anchor baby" interpretation of citizenship and naturalization?

Will you focus, please? (although the marriage has already been answered, the numerous protections under the law offered by the institution :p )

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #578 – 2014-09-15, 02:07:24

A little more on precedent. When a precedent is broken, the court will often distinguish between the current case and the precedent, thus limiting the scope of the precedent. In other, simpler words, what is about this particular case that makes it different from the one that set the precedent? Asking the court to decide against precedent is certainly an uphill battle, but climbing a cliff is difficult but not impossible.

It also depends where the court sits in legal system's hierarchy. Ie, a higher court has some ability to overturn the precedent set in the lower court. Further, the Supreme Court broke its own precedent in the past. It does go without saying that lower courts can't go against the SCOTUS precedent, unless again that court is able to distinguish between its case and the one that set the precedent sufficiently. So you might ask what is sufficiently. That question is so difficult that they lower court won't risk it.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #579 – 2014-09-15, 03:04:03

Only Judge Richard Posner or Judge Reinhardt (of the 9th Circuit) would agree with you…

(Some few others.) Yours is a political fight; your refusal to admit it is is one of a many reasons we, on the right, don't take you seriously… You reject democratic institutions, and democracy in general.
That's a step too far!
(Your obvious recourse is a Howie-esque diatribe… I'll deal with that when you post it. Until then, make your case; present the best arguments you can; but don't assume I agree with you already, and try to convince me that what you intend and propose is nothing more than what I've already accepted! If that is so, spell it out.)

(But I like your "that question is so difficult that they lower court won't risk it" formulation!)
Has it occurred to you, that the political processes are the proper means and ways of dealing with such contentious issues?
Of course not! Others can hold views contrary to yours, as long as they keep quiet; they certainly can't enact "laws" that offend you…

And you (and you cohorts), of course, can enact laws that offend them…!
Why?
——————————————————
Note: This section of this post had to be edited due to "personal attack" issues. Calling each other "idiot" or "retarded"- won't do. Keep it civil. mjmsprt40, moderator.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #580 – 2014-09-15, 07:28:50

Post reported.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #581 – 2014-09-15, 08:53:04

If I believed you had a sense of humor, I'd applaud your ironic reply… But I own a serious doubt.

Use a smiley, if you mean to be — Oh, wait! You reported my post?

Too funny for words!

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #582 – 2014-09-15, 09:39:45

I read multiple non-partisan legal papers to come up with that. It's just how the law works. But, seriously how do come with this stuff about me? I never called for anyone to be silenced.

I mentioned the political processes. But if the constitutionality of gun-control law is in question, it is taken to court, If congress passes a law of dubious constitutionality, lobbying the same congress won't help. That's what the Federal courts are for. It's part of the checks and balances. Further, it's part of a republican form of government. You know what? Never mind. You'll just come back with another personal attack after not researching the issue.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #583 – 2014-09-15, 11:07:36

This has gotten rather far from gun-control, but as long as we're here anyway:
One big issue in every Presidential election is the make-up of the Supreme Court. The President appoints people to fill vacancies to the court, the Congress either accepts or rejects these appointees, and the newly-minted Justices sit on the Court until they either retire or die in office-- whichever comes first. In a Court that's nearly split between Conservative and Liberal Justices, the election of a Democrat or a Republican President makes a big difference. A President could serve two terms in office, and in eight years can make appointments that could swing the Court heavily one way or the other for nearly a lifetime to come.

The President appoints judges to lower Federal courts too, so the amount of mischief a President can do is considerable, considering that future Supreme Court Justices come from the lower Federal courts. Congress can blunt the mischief of course, since Presidential appointees have to pass muster before Congress before they become official "in office", so that keeps the checks and balances intact.

Which side gets to make laws? Who did we put into power? If more Liberals get voted in, you'll have Liberal-leaning laws and courts to back those laws. If we vote in more Conservatives, eventually the Nation will become more Conservative in its laws and its courts. At least that's the lie they told me.

How this gets into the Gun-Control debate--- it sorta depends. If we elect gun-grabbers into office, you can expect tougher laws on gun-ownership and eventually a court system that would back those laws. If we elect a bunch of guys from the radical wing of the NRA, you can eventually have a situation where every baby is given an AR15 the moment he/she comes into the world. By law. Which means the doctor may want to think about it before giving that baby the first slap on the butt, since that baby is armed. So-- who we elect is sort of important, eh?

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #584 – 2014-09-15, 14:51:53

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-09-15, 11:07:36

Congress can blunt the mischief of course,

Unless the courts have to blunt the mischief of congress. When it reaches the courts, there might already be a Persuasive precedent (non mandatory) or a binding one.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #585 – 2014-09-15, 21:59:26

For your pleasure, I have created a New Thread entitled:

[glow=blue,2,300]Constitutional Law, & the Courts - Original Intent v. Legislating from the Bench [/glow]

With that thread it is hoped that the very heartfelt subjects & contentions shown here, & in other threads, would have a home of its own, where your spirited, & sometime bare-knuckle debates, can flourish free from the intent & restraints of other topics.

Please take this most recent Constitutional debate there, simply because it has strayed too far from the original intent of this thread & topic.

Honoring this simple request would be deeply appreciated.....& by all means feel free to link back to remarks held here in this thread for your future consideration(s).

Thanks....

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #586 – 2014-09-17, 05:03:44

Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-09-15, 13:59:26

Please take this most recent Constitutional debate there, simply because it has strayed too far from the original intent of this thread & topic.

I will -of course- comply with your wishes. But you're mistaken, in the sense that the original topic was "disappeared" very early on: The natural "right" to keep and bear arms is justified, and defended, by those who keep -and are willing to bear- arms!
It is an ancient right, still prized — even in some "civilized" nations. That there are few, nowadays, who'd argue such does not mitigate the power of such arguments…
(I've argued this for such a long time! I must be incapable of making a rational argument — considering how few of "our denizens" have engaged with or understood my formulations, historical and logical. But, even if I'm a dolt and a dullard, my analyses and prescriptions might be worth consideration…)

Put "telegraphically": As Charlton ("what the hell kind of name is that"?) Heston said, "You can take my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"
What else does "freedom" mean, beyond Don't Tread On Me?

Did you mean something different, when starting this thread?
———————————————————
Not to put too fine a point on it: Absent a religious viewpoint, what is left -as justification- beyond "Might makes right"…?

But, it seems, no one ever wants to discuss that… They won't admit it; they use every ploy and pretense to avoid it. And -in a time-honored tradition- all the fallacious means of avoiding the simple question for which they have no answer:
Why is the individual not entitled to protect himself? His family? His community?

I think, Smiley, that you know — and don't accept it! I'd agree with you, if you'd come right out and say it. (I might have missed it, if you already did: Give me the link! You're "prolific," and I'm old and tired…

)
As Howie says, "Be ye men!" (Our women are, too, men — in his sense! We are "exceptional"…although we seem to be trying very hard to "devolve"…) But there is a proclivity among the "feminine" persuasion to seek safety first; to acquiesce to force, to admit incapacity rather than contend.

Perhaps, that's how the world is trending.
Some few of us will resist…

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #587 – 2014-09-20, 18:59:23

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-17, 05:03:44

The natural "right" to keep and bear arms is justified, and defended, by those who keep -and are willing to bear- arms!

Course not.
Since our American friends seems to be unaware of any reality besides their... well, something, let me show how an European country solved the right to keep arms and I very much agree.

In fact, instead keeping arms to be considered a "right", it was considered a duty. Switzerland.
Swiss army was a mandatory thing for any man and consisted of two weeks per year of military train and exercises during all life until fifty or so years old. Between those periods, people were responsible for keeping their guns at home and zeal for maintaining it at a perfect operational condition.

You're basically discussing nothing.
And Swiss don't do it anymore.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #588 – 2014-09-20, 20:31:27

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-09-20, 13:59:23

Swiss army was a mandatory thing for any man and consisted of two weeks per year of military train and exercises during all life until fifty or so years old. Between those periods, people were responsible for keeping their guns at home and zeal for maintaining it at a perfect operational condition.

You're basically discussing nothing.

I can see how this might relate. Your example is more apples and oranges tho.

In a document that starts "We The People" the people do have an obligation. That doesn't mean you have to take up arms in defense, but it can mean not getting in the way of those who would.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #589 – 2014-12-06, 21:44:38

Pulling up an "Oldie" here.

I find evidence that as long as there are farms and maybe especially old tractors, guns and ammo may be here awhile.

I found a video of a tractor that not only uses a shotgun shell to get started, it wants a pre-start smoke too! So, two bad habits for the price of one--- what's not to like.

Now, the cigarette-like thing is actually smoldering paper which seems to serve the purpose of the modern-day glow-plug in the diesel engine. The shotgun shell provides the initial burst of power, the #1 cylinder having first been brought to TDC.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Sr8S9uQMc[/video]

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #590 – 2014-12-07, 23:14:16

Not surprising in a country that is juvenile gun mad!

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #591 – 2014-12-08, 00:39:43

The tractor was made in the U.K.
The clip is from an antipodean country.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #592 – 2014-12-08, 00:43:36

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-12-07, 23:14:16

Not surprising in a country that is juvenile gun mad!

Countries aren gun mad; some people are gun mad. I ain't one of them.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #593 – 2014-12-08, 00:50:26

I'm thinking WW2 era. Using a shotgun shell for starting engines seems to have been frequent back then-- some aircraft engines were started that way, if I recall my old movies right. Another way to start an engine involved getting a heavy flywheel up to speed by hand, then engaging a clutch which transferred the flywheel's energy to the engine for starting. Still another way involved winding what amounted to a giant clock-spring, which when released would start the engine.

For the shotgun shell method to work, you would first have to prime the engine by turning it over by hand, then bring the #1 cylinder to firing position. Once this was done, firing the shotgun shell would set off the fuel charge, which would be enough to set the engine to running.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #594 – 2014-12-08, 01:24:08

I don't know if the cartridge is a shotgun shell or not. I think it is a "shotgun-type" shell. It certainly wouldn't have any shot in it.
I don't remember that I ever saw a shotgun shell complete with powder but without shot. The one in the clip looked like a twelve gauge shell in diameter but perhaps a bit longer. I think the cartridges used to start aero engines were bigger.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #595 – 2014-12-08, 01:57:05

Quote from: tt92 on 2014-12-08, 01:24:08

I don't know if the cartridge is a shotgun shell or not. I think it is a "shotgun-type" shell. It certainly wouldn't have any shot in it.
I don't remember that I ever saw a shotgun shell complete with powder but without shot. The one in the clip looked like a twelve gauge shell in diameter but perhaps a bit longer. I think the cartridges used to start aero engines were bigger.

If the shell I saw used to start a Wildcat engine was any indication, the shotgun that would have handled it could have brought down an elephant. Yeah, aero-engine shells were HUGE by comparison with anything used in a standard shotgun. About the one in the video above-- elsewhere I've seen it noted that it is a twelve-gauge shell, though obviously special-purpose for this job.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #596 – 2014-12-09, 20:08:29

Well I wish there were more damn sensible and thinking people over there like jimbro. He'd make a great President and I would then consider a third visit......