Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Hog1;438328]What does the state use to determine is a waiting period (regulated weapon) AR, and a non?[/quote]

Whether or not it is semi-automatic. If the weapon can automatically re-chamber a round from a c[FONT=Verdana][FONT='Times New Roman']artridge or magazine[/FONT], then it requires a waiting period.[/FONT]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;438306]However, would you care to tell the US government to throw all their guns away and use, say, cats to defend this country?
The argument could be made to say knives make this country unsafe as well due to the MASSIVE amount of stabbings, and accidental cuts. Of course I'd love to see people try to cut their steak with a spoon, but whatever.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that analogy holds water. But, if you want to compare people to states, do you think we should actively encourage the proliferation of nuclear arms on the theory that the more nations that have them the better? After all, "bad guys" like China have nukes.

Also, no offense, but I think the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" adds little if anything of substance to the debate about gun control/rights.

Finally, I don't think the comparison of knives, cars, or anything else that can kill can be compared to guns. Knives and cars have a lot of practical uses that are perfectly good, legal, and necessary. Guns have very limited purposes. Guns are pretty much designed to kill and/or maim.

But, I realize I'm not going to change anyone else's opinion about the matter. I like firing weapons. I think hunting rifles and shotguns are fine. But, I also realize that some people have an emotional attachment to firing numerous small projectiles out of a steel tube at a high rate of speed and there's nothing I can do about it.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;438306]Well, you're right, and you're wrong, it doesn't make our society a safer place. It makes the innocent safer because the guns are already in the hands of criminals and how are the innocent to defend themselves?
[B]However, would you care to tell the US government to throw all their guns away and use, say, cats to defend this country? [/B]
The argument could be made to say knives make this country unsafe as well due to the MASSIVE amount of stabbings, and accidental cuts. Of course I'd love to see people try to cut their steak with a spoon, but whatever.

Again I will say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop the evil people from doing evil things and you won't need to worry about guns. Of course that would be a feat unto itself.[/quote]

I'm guessing you haven't heard of laser cats?

[IMG]http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/kimbarnhart/LaserCatsSmall.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;438368]I'm guessing you haven't heard of laser cats?

[IMG]http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/kimbarnhart/LaserCatsSmall.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Nice. That's got to be the post of the day.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;438368]I'm guessing you haven't heard of laser cats?

[IMG]http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/kimbarnhart/LaserCatsSmall.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

LOL...that's funny...that's actually why I said cats.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438359]I don't think that analogy holds water. But, if you want to compare people to states, do you think we should actively encourage the proliferation of nuclear arms on the theory that the more nations that have them the better? After all, "bad guys" like China have nukes. [/quote]

Hmmm, guns to nuclear arms. Yeah, that's a good comparison.

[quote]Also, no offense, but I think the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" adds little if anything of substance to the debate about gun control/rights. [/quote]

That's cause, no offense, but you don't get it. A gun has never, ever, ever killed someone on it's own. You don't walk into a room and see a gun sitting there on the counter and boom, you're dead.

[quote]Finally, I don't think the comparison of knives, cars, or anything else that can kill can be compared to guns. Knives and cars have a lot of practical uses that are perfectly good, legal, and necessary. Guns have very limited purposes. Guns are pretty much designed to kill and/or maim. [/quote]
Knifes are meant to CUT / SLICE, I'm not saying that knives are as dangerous, but if used by the wrong people, it can be just as deadly.

[quote]But, I realize I'm not going to change anyone else's opinion about the matter. I like firing weapons. I think hunting rifles and shotguns are fine. But, I also realize that some people have an emotional attachment to firing numerous small projectiles out of a steel tube at a high rate of speed and there's nothing I can do about it.[/QUOTE]

ditto.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I have an emotional attachment to firing numerous small projectiles out of a tube at a high rate of speed and there is nothing I want done about it............

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;438534]to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. [B]its sole purpose is to kill[/B]. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written[/quote]

I would have to disagree, I would tell you that from my point of view that the sole purpose of a gun is to launch a bullet at an intended target. That target does not have to be a living thing. For some of us it can be a bottle, a piece of paper, or a clay pigeon. Some people just like to shoot, but will never pull a gun on anyone in their entire lives. Yes, many of those same people may carry one for protection at home. That is because most of them know how to use it.

This morning a story on CNN explained how a former female boxer fought off a burgular in her home. She used a tool to do it. Not everyone can wield a hoe like she can. Not everybody can shoot gun properly either, but to take that tool away from everybody is not right. Whats next, a metal detector and security at your front door telling you that you cannot bring toe nail clippers into your house because they can potentially be a weapon? Come on.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;438534]to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. [B]lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree 100%, too many times the justice system gets manipulated and people get set free or get just a slap on the wrist when in fact they should have went to jail or what not. I do think that we need to enforce the laws more..

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;438534]to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written[/quote]

Dmek for President in '08!!!!!!!!

You are totally correct. The justice system IS letting us down in many arena's............and we do not need more laws (unless others are taken off the books to make room). We need to enforce what we have.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;438498]Hmmm, guns to nuclear arms. Yeah, that's a good comparison.[/QUOTE]

It's about as appropriate as your comparison of individuals to nations.

[QUOTE=jsarno;438498]That's cause, no offense, but you don't get it. A gun has never, ever, ever killed someone on it's own. You don't walk into a room and see a gun sitting there on the counter and boom, you're dead. [/QUOTE]

What don't I get? How exactly does that add anything of substance to the gun rights debate? It doesn't and your response did nothing but reiterate the phrase.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;438544]sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen[/QUOTE]

I realize that I am not going to change anyone's opinion. I would, however, like to hear someone articulate a balanced, sound, and persuasive argument, rather than simply resorting to the same ole' meaningless phrases like "guns don't kill people, people do." What the hell does that mean or add to the debate?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;438544]sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen[/quote]
Most gun owners are not fanatical about their rights. Also if you take a gun and sit it on a table how does it kill a person?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;438548]Most gun owners are not fanatical about their rights. Also if you take a gun and sit it on a table how does it kill a person?[/QUOTE]

Obviously, guns do not kill anyone by themselves. Then again, neither do RPGs, IEDs, or claymores, but no one really thinks they should be legal. That guns do not, by themselves, kill does not IMO alter the debate about gun control/rights.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438550]Obviously, guns do not kill anyone by themselves. Then again, neither do RPGs, IEDs, or claymores, but no one really thinks they should be legal. That guns do not, by themselves, kill does not alter the debate about gun control/rights.[/quote]


Do you know how many deer I could hit in one shot with a claymore? That would be cool!

JK.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438543]It's about as appropriate as your comparison of individuals to nations. [/quote]

Alright, it's been a long couple of days, but when and what did I say to compare individuals to nations?

[quote]What don't I get? How exactly does that add anything of substance to the gun rights debate? It doesn't and your response did nothing but reiterate the phrase.[/QUOTE]

I think it adds a lot of substance if you just sit back and think about it, but the problem is, those that do not like guns don't even look at that comment and absorb it.

I asked earlier how you could allow the country to use guns to defend the country, but you made no comment about it. So how can you be OK with the military using guns / rifles / automatic weapons, but it's not OK to use guns in self defense in your own home? (please do not forget to answer this question)
(is this what you were referring to when you asked about the comparison of individuals to nations?? If so, this is a valid question since individuals are the ones using the weapons. Just cause they are fighting for a country instead of family shouldn't disqualify the question)

You ask for substance in this debate, but unfortunately you are not offering any at this point. So let's debate with substance. Keep in mind you have a lot to prove since 1- you are trying to make something legal, illegal. 2- you are trying to convince others to ignore the constitution and ultimately change it. The burden of proof is on you. So what do you have to convince us we need to turn in our guns? (please note this is not sarcasm, I am truly interested in a debate with logical substance)

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Didn't we cover all this in the first 15 pages?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I'm not even sure why we're bothering with this discussion. Apparently guns don't kill people, don't you guys get it?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;438747]Alright, it's been a long couple of days, but when and what did I say to compare individuals to nations?[/QUOTE]

See your cats argument and your below comments.

[QUOTE=jsarno;438747]
I think it adds a lot of substance if you just sit back and think about it, but the problem is, those that do not like guns don't even look at that comment and absorb it.[/QUOTE]

I am lazy and dumb, so please articulate how the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" is meaningful.

[QUOTE=jsarno;438747]I asked earlier how you could allow the country to use guns to defend the country, but you made no comment about it. So how can you be OK with the military using guns / rifles / automatic weapons, but it's not OK to use guns in self defense in your own home? (please do not forget to answer this question)
(is this what you were referring to when you asked about the comparison of individuals to nations?? If so, this is a valid question since individuals are the ones using the weapons. Just cause they are fighting for a country instead of family shouldn't disqualify the question)

You ask for substance in this debate, but unfortunately you are not offering any at this point. So let's debate with substance. Keep in mind you have a lot to prove since 1- you are trying to make something legal, illegal. 2- you are trying to convince others to ignore the constitution and ultimately change it. The burden of proof is on you. So what do you have to convince us we need to turn in our guns? (please note this is not sarcasm, I am truly interested in a debate with logical substance)[/QUOTE]

The "burden of proof" is not on anyone. This isn't a court, it is a website. Moreover, I never said that all guns should be illegal. I believe hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, although they should be regulated like handguns (i.e., background check, waiting period). I believe that many other weapons (e.g., semi-automatic rifles that cab readily be turned into fully automatic weapons and .50 cal sniper rifles) should be illegal.

There are many reasons why I believe firearms should be subject to heavy regulation. First, I believe the NRA and many gun enthusiasts are reading the Second Amendment far too liberally. The Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to protect themselves from government abuses. If you believe (a) you need firearms in case you need to wage war on our government OR (b) a glock is going to stop the 10th Mountain Division, you should probably see your doctor because you are obviously not taking all of your lithium.

Second, many gun enthusiasts believe that gun control advocates are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there are out there in the cold world. However, I think those people are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there who simply lack the maturity to responsibly handle firearms. If you need to take a written examination and a driving test to operate a vehicle that is indispensible, why do you not need to do anything to purchase an object that is specifically designed to kill, wound, or intimidate? Moroever, the notion that we should respond to the gun problem by proliferating guns seems quite strange.

Third, the "average Joe" cannot be compared to our nation's military. Our men and women in uniform spend countless hours training to use firearms. So, that analogy is totally inappropriate IMO. But, since you think the two are analogous, do you then believe that members of the public should be able to go to the local Walmart and buy M1-A2 tanks, F-22 Raptors, stingers, claymores, etc? After all, many criminals have automatic weapons, so should the average Joe be able to "one up" them?

Fourth, I do not believe guns pass a cost benefit test. We could go on and on citing statistics from various groups that have a vested interest in proving or disproving the utility and cost of firearms. I don't care to do so.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Just as an aside, if you REALLY want to see some interesting and scholarly debate on the history of 2A, its original meaing and subsequent interpretation go here:

[url]http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf[/url]

It's the transcript from the recent oral argument in [I]Heller[/I]. It's about 110 pages and, at points, assumes you have read the underlying briefs, but, IMO, it is required reading for any intelligent debate or assertions as to the legal status of a person's right to carry/own guns. Good stuff.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;438786]I'm not even sure why we're bothering with this discussion. Apparently guns don't kill people, don't you guys get it?[/quote]

Now now, people kill people. Even people with frying pans can kill people. Protect your neck, get a frying pan!

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438804]
The "burden of proof" is not on anyone. This isn't a court, it is a website. [/quote]
If you are wanting to change laws, and that is your intent with an argument, then yes, the burden of proof is indeed on you regardless of medium.

[quote]Moreover, I never said that all guns should be illegal. I believe hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, although they should be regulated like handguns (i.e., background check, waiting period). I believe that many other weapons (e.g., semi-automatic rifles that cab readily be turned into fully automatic weapons and .50 cal sniper rifles) should be illegal. [/quote]
I owe you an apology sir. I thought you were arguing to get rid of all guns. I misunderstood your intent, and points. Fact is, your above comment is right on the money with my thoughts as well. Although a sniper rifle would come in handy when shooting a deer.

[quote]There are many reasons why I believe firearms should be subject to heavy regulation.[/quote]

With the exception of the above mentioned regulations, which I do not consider to be "heavy", what are you referring to?

[quote]First, I believe the NRA and many gun enthusiasts are reading the Second Amendment far too liberally. The Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to protect themselves from government abuses. If you believe (a) you need firearms in case you need to wage war on our government OR (b) a glock is going to stop the 10th Mountain Division, you should probably see your doctor because you are obviously not taking all of your lithium.[/quote]

Agreed. Although, the 2nd amendment's intent wasn't solely to protect from government abuse. Personal protection was a main staple.

[quote]Second, many gun enthusiasts believe that gun control advocates are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there are out there in the cold world. However, I think those people are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there who simply lack the maturity to responsibly handle firearms. If you need to take a written examination and a driving test to operate a vehicle that is indispensible, why do you not need to do anything to purchase an object that is specifically designed to kill, wound, or intimidate? Moroever, the notion that we should respond to the gun problem by proliferating guns seems quite strange.[/quote]

Well, my gun has only been fired at a gun range. Thankfully there has been no need to use it in my home...although the 1 time someone did try to break in I was waiting around the corner of my french doors with the gun cocked and ready. Lucky for him he couldn't get through my locks, as it is 100% legal here to kill an intruder. That being said, when you drive a vehicle you are a human / mechanical bullet. You do this every day, all the time, and in multiple directions. You also drive this bullet amongst a ton of other bullets. People that own guns do not use them often (minus gun range where there are a lot of regulations). So I do not see the need to make people take classes etc to use a gun. It doesn't take that much intelligence to use a gun, you point and shoot. A car / laws of the road are much more complex. So we disagree on this point, but it's not like it's anything important anyway.

[quote]Third, the "average Joe" cannot be compared to our nation's military. Our men and women in uniform spend countless hours training to use firearms. So, that analogy is totally inappropriate IMO. But, since you think the two are analogous, do you then believe that members of the public should be able to go to the local Walmart and buy M1-A2 tanks, F-22 Raptors, stingers, claymores, etc? After all, many criminals have automatic weapons, so should the average Joe be able to "one up" them?[/quote]

You make a good point, however, I was under the impression you wanted to outlaw guns thus my comparison, since I now see that is not your intent, it makes this point moot.

[quote]Fourth, I do not believe guns pass a cost benefit test. We could go on and on citing statistics from various groups that have a vested interest in proving or disproving the utility and cost of firearms. I don't care to do so.[/QUOTE]

I don't recall talking about the cost benefit...unsure of what triggered this response from you.

All in all, we are on a similar page. Again, I apologize for the confusion.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Sorry to be doing this in bits and pieces. Here is the lower court's finding that has been appealled (by D.C.) to the Supreme Court:

[url]http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf[/url]

Lots of good stuff on the history of gun ownership and gun rights in the context of the English common law.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;438839]This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?[/QUOTE]

Well, I would only become uncompliant if they banned guns altogether. I do not have ANY desire to own semi automatic weapons. My concern is personal safety. My guns of choice are handguns and shotguns. I am not even a hunter, I can't kill an animal like that, but I would not take that right away from hunters. That's just a personal preference.
To me, people that are trying to ban guns are doing so 100% out of fear and never owned a gun in their life, and likely never needed one for any reason. So the people trying to ban guns would be like a virgin nun trying to ban condoms.
Does that answer you question?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;438839]This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: [B]1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.[/B]

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?[/quote]

I know that this was for JSARNO, but I could not resist. This is not always feesable.

1. Would you trust a 21 year old man with only 3 years experience with weaponry vs. a 38 year old retiree with 20 years because the 18 year old is in the guard and the retiree is done with the military alltogether.

2. The weapons used by the National Guard are issued to them and are held at a centralized arms room. If for some reason thase arms rooms were seized by the hypothetical enemy, then what?

I will tell you what; we are in trouble because in your world we either dont have weapons, or we have less experience backing them.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;438848]Sorry to be doing this in bits and pieces. Here is the lower court's finding that has been appealled (by D.C.) to the Supreme Court:

[url]http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf[/url]

Lots of good stuff on the history of gun ownership and gun rights in the context of the English common law.[/QUOTE]

Interesting stuff. I strongly suggest others read this decision.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438859]Interesting stuff. I strongly suggest others read this decision.[/quote]


WOW, That is jacked up considering that DC has a National Guard.

[url=http://dcng.ngb.army.mil/]Joint Force HQ DC National Guard[/url]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;438849]Well, I would only become uncompliant if they banned guns altogether. I do not have ANY desire to own semi automatic weapons. My concern is personal safety. My guns of choice are handguns and shotguns. I am not even a hunter, I can't kill an animal like that, but I would not take that right away from hunters. That's just a personal preference.
To me, people that are trying to ban guns are doing so 100% out of fear and never owned a gun in their life, and likely never needed one for any reason. So the people trying to ban guns would be like a virgin nun trying to ban condoms.
[B]Does that answer you question[/B]?[/QUOTE]

I think so, but correct me if I am wrong:
If the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, determined that it was permissible for a State to entirely ban [I]your[/I] private ownership of guns, then you would disobey any law passed in accordance with that determination.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;438871]I think so, but correct me if I am wrong:
If the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, determined that it was permissible for a State to entirely ban [I]your[/I] private ownership of guns, then you would disobey any law passed in accordance with that determination.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, I think the Court will affirm the lower court's holding. I'm frankly astonished that is has taken over 200 years for the Court to determine whether the 2nd Amendment is a collective or individual right.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;438853]I know that this was for JSARNO, but I could not resist. This is not always feesable.

1. Would you trust a 21 year old man with only 3 years experience with weaponry vs. a 38 year old retiree with 20 years because the 18 year old is in the guard and the retiree is done with the military alltogether.

2. The weapons used by the National Guard are issued to them and are held at a centralized arms room. If for some reason thase arms rooms were seized by the hypothetical enemy, then what?

I will tell you what; we are in trouble because in your world we either dont have weapons, or we have less experience backing them.[/QUOTE]

First, the National Guard was just an example and the opinions and transcript I have cited deal with this issue (i.e. - Federal control of state arms).

More importantly, I was not asking whether or not someone believed this was a correct decision. Rather, I was asking if this unlikely hypothetical eventuality became a reality, would you comply?

[Just want to be clear: I am not in favor of banning guns and would opppose any determination by the S.Court that would result in my hypothetical becoming a reality. At the same time, I would do so through the legal process rather than by unlawful action].

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;438871]I think so, but correct me if I am wrong:
If the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, determined that it was permissible for a State to entirely ban [I]your[/I] private ownership of guns, then you would disobey any law passed in accordance with that determination.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that would ever happen. Too many gun owners would protest it. We'd have a prohibition on our hands.
But to answer your question for shits and giggles, I would absolutely disobey it. The supreme court would be wrong for doing so, and I refuse to allow them to tell me how to protect myself.
If they made a ruling to disallow all security systems in vehicles, homes, and work related, would you comply?

ps- if the government decided to do something so blantently stupid, then what is next? Be very careful when the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope, and I feel would be the beginning of the end of this country.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438873]Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, I think the Court will affirm the lower court's holding.[/QUOTE]

I think it is pretty clear that is the way they are heading, and again, I am actually okay with that. At the same time, it does become a question of regulation. If private ownership of guns is protected: Can the State limit the number owned? The storage and safety measures required by owners? If so, to what extent?

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;438873]I'm frankly astonished that is has taken over 200 years for the Court to determine whether the 2nd Amendment is a collective or individual right.[/QUOTE]

I agree. When I first started looking into this, I expected to find a fairly straightforward answer. Part of the confusion, I think, is the societal change that has occurred in the last 200 hundred years and the changes in how governments raise and maintain armies. Stretching back to antiquity, there was a time when, as a public duty, men were required to have arms in order to provide for the common defense. Thus, the individual right was part of a public duty. As times changed, so did the neccessity for individual ownership as part of a public duty (generally, in developed countries that is simply no longer the case). At the same time, the right to privately own guns became so ingrained in society that, IMO, it became seen as neccessary to individual liberty.

I have always held that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a necessary check on attempt by the central authority to monopolize power. Balanced against this, of course, is the central authority's need to protect the general citizenry from dangerous conditions created by a prolifieration of deadly weapons.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;438874]First, the National Guard was just an example and the opinions and transcript I have cited deal with this issue (i.e. - Federal control of state arms).

More importantly, I was not asking whether or not someone believed this was a correct decision. Rather, I was asking if this unlikely hypothetical eventuality became a reality, would you comply?

[Just want to be clear: I am not in favor of banning guns and would opppose any determination by the S.Court that would result in my hypothetical becoming a reality. At the same time, I would do so through the legal process rather than by unlawful action].[/quote]

I see what you are saying. To put it simply I am happy until they try to take my guns away. I would hope to maintain posession of them legally, but I would take any and all necessary actions to maintain possession of my own firearms.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;438877]I don't think that would ever happen. Too many gun owners would protest it. We'd have a prohibition on our hands.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Even if permitted by the Court, I doubt State's would act to do so. Further, the day after such a restrictive decision came out, calls for a new amendment would also be out.

[QUOTE=jsarno;438877]But to answer your question for shits and giggles, I would absolutely disobey it. The supreme court would be wrong for doing so, and I refuse to allow them to tell me how to protect myself. [/QUOTE]

So, your calls for respecting the Constitution and the Founder's intent is only true when the system they enacted results in a decision with which you agree. If the system enacted by the Founder's results in what [I]you [/I]determine to be an infringement of your rights, you are then free to ignore it?

So much for your much vaunted "Rules are the Rules" arguments.

[QUOTE=jsarno;438877]If they made a ruling to disallow all security systems in vehicles, homes, and work related, would you comply?.[/QUOTE]

Fair question, and, honestly, not sure how to answer it. I think I would try to comply with the letter of the law while: a) finding every loophole possible in both it's wording and intent; and b) actively working to change it.

[QUOTE=jsarno;438877]ps- if the government decided to do something so blantently stupid, then what is next? Be very careful when the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope, and I feel would be the beginning of the end of this country.[/QUOTE]

<sigh> It seems as if everything is a slippery slope to you. Every day, and in every action it takes "the government" is enforcing what "they think is best for you". Speed limits? Pollution controls? Food inspection requiremnts? Sanitation controls? who to tax and how much? How much to charge for postage? How to prioritize government spending? The list is f***'ing endless. [As a personal example: Should I settle the case I am working on? Should I pursue it to litigation? Which is in the best interests of the public (i.e. what outcome is best for you)?]

With all due respect, the fundamental flaw in almost all your arguments is that you continually assert/assume that "the government" is some separate entity that exists free and clear of the society that both created and supports it. You seem to constantly view the government as an opponent of the society that created it. To some extent, it is because - as the saying goes - you can't please all the people all the time. BUT, that is only half the equation. It is also works on behalf of every individual who comprises it. It does not exist in a void or separate from the governed.

To continually assert that things are going down a slippery slope is to ignore the fundamental responsiveness of the government created by the Founders. They created a system that continually balances the tension between 1) a society's need to have a governing body to ensure the goal of maximum individual freedom 2) the need for that governing body to have authority to limit individual freedom in order to effectuate that goal. The government created by the Founders is sometimes slow, awkward or seemingly out of touch, but it has historically balanced these tensions by always being government "of the people, by the people and for the people." As such, the extreme swings of governmental authority you seem to envision are simply removed from the reality of the government we have created for ourselves.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;438889]I see what you are saying. To put it simply I am happy until they try to take my guns away. I would hope to maintain posession of them legally, but I would take any and all necessary actions to maintain possession of my own firearms.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Further, I would assert that a complete ban will not occur and could not occur under the Constitution as currently written.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;438894]So, your calls for respecting the Constitution and the Founder's intent is only true when the system they enacted results in a decision with which you agree. If the system enacted by the Founder's results in what [I]you [/I]determine to be an infringement of your rights, you are then free to ignore it?

So much for your much vaunted "Rules are the Rules" arguments.[/quote]

See your below argument.
I am not saying I would be right. Hell I speed constantly. When I travel to El Paso, I drive a MINIMUM of 85mph. Usually 90-95mph. The rules are the rules, and if I got caught then I'd expect to be disciplined...same would apply to this gun issue.

[quote]Fair question, and, honestly, not sure how to answer it. I think I would try to comply with the letter of the law while: a) finding every loophole possible in both it's wording and intent; and b) actively working to change it.

<sigh> It seems as if everything is a slippery slope to you. Every day, and in every action it takes "the government" is enforcing what "they think is best for you". Speed limits? Pollution controls? Food inspection requiremnts? Sanitation controls? who to tax and how much? How much to charge for postage? How to prioritize government spending? The list is f***'ing endless.[/quote]
You missed the point. I am not saying that everything the government puts into action is something that would be a slippery slope.
I am against anything they would try to pass that infinges on rights. For instance, You do not have the right to drive 100mph because it's not your land. If it was, then you could drive as fast as you want. You went a little overboard there buddy. You are assuming.

[quote]To continually assert that things are going down a slippery slope is to ignore the fundamental responsiveness of the government created by the Founders. They created a system that continually balances the tension between [b]1) a society's need to have a governing body to ensure the goal of maximum individual freedom [/b]2) the need for that governing body to have authority to limit individual freedom in order to effectuate that goal. The government created by the Founders is sometimes slow, awkward or seemingly out of touch, but it has historically balanced these tensions by always being government "of the people, by the people and for the people." As such, the extreme swings of governmental authority you seem to envision are simply removed from the reality of the government we have created for ourselves.[/QUOTE]

maximum individual freedom just stood out to me. Cause in the cases we have disagreed, you have been opposed to that. You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it? The correct thing to do is punish the hell out of the person that abuses his gun rights. make the punishment severe and maybe these issues would cease. However, if guns were banished, all that would do is hurt the honest people. The honest, law abiding people are not the ones causing issues with guns, but the laws would ONLY affect them. That doesn't make any sense.

To be fair, it's been exactly two topics I said things would be a slippery slope, and both have similarities as to why I said that.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;439010]I am not saying I would be right. Hell I speed constantly. When I travel to El Paso, I drive a MINIMUM of 85mph. Usually 90-95mph. The rules are the rules, and if I got caught then I'd expect to be disciplined...same would apply to this gun issue.[/QUOTE]

Okay. Fair enough.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439010]You missed the point. I am not saying that everything the government puts into action is something that would be a slippery slope.
I am against anything they would try to pass that infinges on rights. For instance, You do not have the right to drive 100mph because it's not your land. If it was, then you could drive as fast as you want. You went a little overboard there buddy. You are assuming.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make. You original statement was "[w]hen the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope". To me that is a ludicrous statement b/c it encompasses the entirety of government actions.

If you are saying that, "when government begins to infringe on your constitutionally guarranteed rights, we are heading down a slippery slope". I would still argue that the qualifications to the underlying assumptions of that statement are numerous and invalidate the conclusion. First, as with the 2A debate, the question of what are your "constitutional rights" is something continually the topic of debate and evolution. Second, even once defined, your "constitutional rights" are subject to regulation. There are simply no constitutional rights that are are unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thus, your "freedom of speech" is limited and regulated for the safety of others.

It seems to me that, what you see as a "slippery slope", is simply the government performing its requisite balancing act.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439010]maximum individual freedom just stood out to me. Cause in the cases we have disagreed, you have been opposed to that.[/QUOTE]


I have never been opposed to maximum individual freedom. I firmly believe that it is the essence of our form of government and necessary for the good of society as a whole. The problem, of course, is that your complete, unfettered freedom will inevitably clash with the complete, unfettered freedom of another (in the words of Isiah Berlin - the fox's idea of freedom is entirely different from the sheep's idea of freedom). Thus, our government exists to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise between you and others when each party is exercising what it views as its constitutional rights. In such clashes, and just as inevitable as the conflicts, is the result that the "constitutional rights" of one or more people will be subject to limitation.

The whole 2A debate is exactly a repesentation of this clash - You assert that you are guarranteed the "right" to "keep and bear" firearms - others argue that they have the "right" to limit the spread of firearms by limiting their ownership to those individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia". Each side has legitimate constitutional arguments and support. Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the position that more closely reflects the Constitutional guarrantees. In doing so, the losing side will, inevitably, claim that their rights are being infringed upon when, in fact, the SC is just determining what rights are guarranteed and just how far those guarantees extend before they infringe upon others rights.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439010] You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it? The correct thing to do is punish the hell out of the person that abuses his gun rights. make the punishment severe and maybe these issues would cease. However, if guns were banished, all that would do is hurt the honest people. The honest, law abiding people are not the ones causing issues with guns, but the laws would ONLY affect them. That doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]

Generally, I agree with the assertions in this statement. My differences with it are laid out in several posts earlier in the thread and I am simply not going to rehash the areas of disagreement. Simply put, I oppose the banning of personal ownership of firearms but believe that the general public has the right to reasonably regulate their use, storage and qualifications of ownership.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439010]To be fair, it's been exactly two topics I said things would be a slippery slope, and both have similarities as to why I said that.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and in each case it appeared to me that the "slippery slope" argument was invoked as an objection to the every day actions of our government as it attempts to balance individual rights v. collective rights through regulation.