It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution..... - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-18-2007, 06:15 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Hey Dread,

How many guns do you own?
Why do you ask?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:16 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
should being admitted to a mental institution for any reason be enough to disqualify someone from ever being able to purchase a gun, much like being convicted of a felony disqualifies someone?

it seems to me that if we're going to kick people out of the military for being gay or we don't let anyone who's ever smoked marijuana work in some areas of the CIA, hospitalization seems a perfectly reasonable disqualification for handgun ownership.
I would say yes to this....but...I am willing to bet that privacy law prevents this......
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:19 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Why do you ask?
Just
curious

I got a few.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:23 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Just
curious

I got a few.
I do not publicly announce what I have or do not have. It helps keep people guessing. Kind of like Saddam and WMD.

[Q]In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care. [/Q]

If this is true.....HOW DID HE PURCHASE A GUN?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:27 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
nevre mind...I am getting too cranky.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:31 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]Well, Thomas Jefferson may not be worried about Native Americans, but thousands of colonist who had seen their people slaughtered over the years since the first settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts by Native Americans know better. So would any of the colonist who served with the British Military in 3 wars against the French and Indians. [/Q]

Again, you speak as if you are lecturing me. The settlers also did slaughtering if my memory serves correct. I have not said that there was no need for people to have had weapons.


[Q]n militia's were necessary for security from the start of the first settlements, otherwise the colonial movement would have been wiped out in the early 1600s. The militia's were never formed in order to protect the "right to bear arms" etc. 90% of the colonist were farmers and even in England their right to bear arms would be protected given what they did for a living, even without all the issues of settling lands with hostile natives and foreign powers just over the horizon. [/Q]

I never said militia's were formed to protect the right to bear arms professor. Stop doing what you do to every other poster in this forum. Stop putting owrds into my mouth.

[Q] colonist prior to the events surrounding the Revolution did not fear the British government and regarded themselves as British and were in fact proud to be apart of the British Empire.[/Q]

Well, you have got something right.

[Q]Prior to 1763, no colonist thought of their weapons as a means to resist and revolt against the British Empire an Empire that up to that time they were proud to be apart of. The weapons were necessary for the militia's as well as for daily farm and frontier life. [/Q]

And, when was the Constitution written? 1763? Wake up. The Constitution was written after the war when the thought of a tyrranical government disarming themwas on their minds.


[Q] "As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".[/Q]

Ummm....glad to see you can read the text of the Constituion. I never said it said that, but I have read the first hand accounts of the debates that took place state by state, over each of the Ammendments. I have read the federalist papers. I would think that this is where the INTENT of the ammendment was discussed professor.

[Q] The British moves in late 1774 and early 1775 to sieze stores of ammo and supplies were about weakening a threatening military force in the form of the Massachusetts Militias. The British were not attempting to sieze all the muskets in every house, on every farm, in the state of Massachusetts. The colonist grievances against England from 1763 to 1775 had nothing to do with the "right to bear arms". [/Q]

I am a little surprised at your lack of understanding here with your military knowledge. I am just curious, exactly who do you think made up the militia? Where did the militia come from and where did they get their weapons?

The British moved on large concentrations of munitions because the farmers who made up the militias would not have had enough munitions to battle the superior forces.

Again, the reason the founding fathers wanted the new country armed was because without the success of the farmer/militiaman, the war would have been lost EARLY on.


Now you can post louder than me, longer than me, put words into my mouth, and twist my words, but the fact remains, there is a HISTORICAL RECORD in which the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was debated, in each of the 13 colonies. There is a historical record of the men who said specifically why the ammendment was there.

-----------------------------

Side bar, you speak of the native Americans as if they were Al-Qaeda. Aside from King Phillips War do you have any other grudges towards them?
I'm well aware that the constitution was written after the war, but you started this line of debate by talking about Lexington and Concord and I was responding to that as well as the following qoute:

"I would again state that it was important to the colonists before, during and after the war, to protect their right to bear arms, for the very reason that they feared a strong central governement."

The colonist were not afraid of a strong central government taking away their guns before the war and they did not go to war because of the "right to bear arms".

The Militias came from the population 90% of whom were farmers but that does not change the fact many in the Militia's were professionals and were the main military force in the colonies for security. The description of them as just being simple farmers with no clue who individually went after the British is false. The militia companies of each town were organized and trained for variety of missions including assisting the British Army. Farmers, whether in the militia or not, had firearms to protect their livestock and hunt. It was not to stop a hypothetical tyranical government and the British military was not out to sieze farmers firearms which even in England would be considered a necessity for one that had a farm.

The Militia's were military forces that had previously aided the limited number of British military forces in the colonies. When the growing conflict moved towards war, the militia companies that had earlier supported and supplemented British military forces became hostile military formations, and the British Army in Boston, heavily outnumbered, wanted to weaken the militia's ability to threaten them.

The largest stores of ammo and supplies were actually in Worcester. The Militia there actually had 15 cannon!

The Militia's had been the main military force in the colonies with the exception of a few periods going all the way back to Jamestown in 1607. In the absense of a significant standing army, the militia's were necessary for security.

Regardless of the fact that many of the founding fathers considered it important to not infringe upon the right to bear arms for fear of hypothetical tyranical government, US citizens have long since lost the legal ability to obtain weapons to successfully oppose the government. The capability that Thomas Jefferson and others wanted US citizens to have no longer exist. So this is not an arguement that can used in regards to whether there needs to be stricter gun control or a total ban on guns for civilians in 2007.



If you think King Philips War was the only case of Indians slaughtering colonist, you are greatly mistaken. The #1 threat to the security of colonist from Georgia to Maine(then Massachusetts) during the pre-Revolutionary war period were Indians. Indians raided and slaughtered colonist for several hundred years all the way up and down the eastern seaboard. Colonist certainly did their share of slaughtering as well and there was fighting between various Indian tribes also. There were also several towns, where at least for a period of time, Indians and Colonist lived together peacefully such as Sudbury Massachusetts.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:59 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Have a nice day Sting. You have a wonderful grasp af statistics, data ect.

Again, You put words into my mouth. I have blocked you for periods of time, because quite frankly, there is no discussion with you.

I did not state that the colonists went to war for the right to bear arms.

The fact that the the colonists went to a confederate system of government COMPLTELY supports my position that a strong central governement was feared by the colonists.

My point is that Lexington and Concord was indeed an attempt at disarming the colonists by getting the munitions (be the musketballs, poder, ect). You yourself state that 90% of the militia's were farmers. Obviously, they were not supplied their weapons by the government. They were their weapons. As for the taking of farmers weapons you have ignored my statement that the munitions were more important to the British than the actual weapons so by disarming, the materials stored in Concord were important.

[Q]Regardless of the fact that many of the founding fathers considered it important to not infringe upon the right to bear arms for fear of hypothetical tyranical government, US citizens have long since lost the legal ability to obtain weapons to successfully oppose the government.[/Q]

Speaking of "hypothetically tyrranical" how many of the rights we have do you support the governement removal of?


I do not give a rats ass who had what in Worcester. Its nice to know, but it would have been in loyalist territory based on what I know at the time, not much of a concern. Hence the raid on Ticonderoga to get cannon.


[Q]If you think King Philips War was the only case of Indians slaughtering colonist, you are greatly mistaken. The #1 threat to the security of colonist from Georgia to Maine(then Massachusetts) during the pre-Revolutionary war period were Indians. Indians raided and slaughtered colonist for several hundred years all the way up and down the eastern seaboard. Colonist certainly did their share of slaughtering as well and there was fighting between various Indian tribes also. There were also several towns, where at least for a period of time, Indians and Colonist lived together peacefully such as Sudbury Massachusetts.[/Q]

Gee...I di dnot know that.....LOL

Actually, the Native Americans were getting along pretty well throughout PLYMOUTH COLONY while the 1st generation of Pilgrims and Wampanoags were alive. It was during the next generation and the influence of Massachusetts Bay Colony that the tenor of the relationship in Massachusetts began to change.

And yet we dismiss the founding fathers and peoples written records of this Amendment with it doesn't matter because the US Army could kick our ass today if it wanted to....LOL
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 07:41 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 02:43 PM
I haven't read thru the whole thread but I agree that there should be stricter gun control laws! Way stricter! I want to say only the police and other law enforcement authorities should be able to possess guns of any kind. But I don't know if it's practical or not. I don't care about hunters. Human life is way more precious than the need for a hunting hobby!
__________________
Zoots is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 08:12 PM   #84
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
hospitalization seems a perfectly reasonable disqualification for handgun ownership.
California had a similar problem. We outlawed gun ownership for people convicted of certain degrees of domestic violence. That created quite a problem on some police forces.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 08:19 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


If this is true.....HOW DID HE PURCHASE A GUN?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278
That's what I was referring to before. One has got to wonder about the sanity of a law in that state which would permit such an individual to buy a gun.

And sure, history of mental illness hospitalization should result in an automatic preclusion to gun ownership. Why not? Your rights end where public peril begins.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-18-2007, 08:29 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 01:43 PM
deep, Dreadsox, do you actually feel that insecure? Can I ask what kind of areas you live in? Is there ridiculously high crime?

I think this is what is most hard for us outside the US to understand. It's not the stereotype painted image of the redneck NRA member who drives this huge SUV, has an American flag in the front yard, gets around in God Bless America t-shirts and owns a small armoury that they think is literally their God given right to own - that's too easy to write off as crazy in some "only in America" way. What is hard to understand is the regular, average, middle class suburban living person who feels the need to own a gun/s. An actual feeling of need. That's where I think there is a key difference. I live in a city of 5 million, that comes with all the regular issues of a city of that size. I personally live pretty close to the city. I grew up in a suburb that had virtually no crime. If you were lying in bed and remembered you didn't lock your car out in the street, you really didn't think it was worth getting up and going and locking the thing, the risk of theft did not even register, perhaps petty theft from some 'naughty' local kid if you left something obvious exposed on the dashboard, but you wouldn't worry about the car itself. Just as an example. I now live in an inner city area, a mix of young couples, students, 20 something's living close to work etc. There's also a decent amount of crime in the area that means you definitely do get out of bed to lock your car, you do double check the house is all locked up, you do even angle where you place your belongings within your house so as the expensive stuff isn't so obvious to anyone peering through a window. Stuff happens, and you hear pretty regular stories from others living in the area.

It is, however, certainly not a dangerous area. Crime happens, very regularly, but it's not violent. Maybe that's the difference. My point is, I've lived in an area where I once left a brand new big screen TV in it's box on the front porch overnight without any concerns, and now in an area where we had to re-arrange the whole living room when we bought a plasma so that should we be watching it with the blinds open, no-one from the street could see it as we knew that would be pretty much asking for it. In neither situation though would I even contemplate owning a gun, nor do I feel any need for anything like that. At all. I can't imagine anywhere in a city like Sydney feeling the need to own one, and Sydney most definitely has it's fair share of dangerous areas and crime, as any city of it's size does.

I just can't fathom ever feeling the need to own one.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 09:02 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:43 PM
Quote:
And yet we dismiss the founding fathers and peoples written records of this Amendment with it doesn't matter because the US Army could kick our ass today if it wanted to....LOL
Hmmm if only they were able to warn about the danger of a standing army back them.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 09:30 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
deep, Dreadsox, do you actually feel that insecure? Can I ask what kind of areas you live in? Is there ridiculously high crime?

I just can't fathom ever feeling the need to own one.
I am not sure why owning a gun makes one "insecure".

I live in a rural area. The big news over the last 10 years is Dunkin Dognuts (heh) and McDonalds arriving in town. Life has become busy in the last few years in our town!

Most of the "townies" those born and raised here own guns. I am not a townie and our "Old Home Day" is one in which people who are not townies, just do not fit in.

The gun controversy has blazed in my town hot and cold over the last ten years. A police chief was basically run out of town for not giving enough gun permits, quite an interesting town meeting when the NRA showed up, and attempts were made to cut the chief's salary to 25,000.

Most people I know hunt...deer, coyote, wild turkey. We have a massive clam bake in town in the summer. Everyone knows everybody else, or at least, it feels like we do. Nobody is insecure to my knowledge, other than people denied permits, and quite frankly, I am not sure that bothers me. Seeing a grown man cry publicly because he wants his 15 year old to be able to carry troubles me. They lost, and I was happy to see the chief win that battle.

Insecure though? Nah, most days my neighbors and I do not lock the doors to our homes. Then again, my dog is still home, and when we are not home, the lab in him disappears and the pit bull in him kind of takes over.

Not sure I answered your question or not. But, I still do not remember saying I owned a weapon.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 09:31 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Hmmm if only they were able to warn about the danger of a standing army back them.
lol
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 09:40 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


That's what I was referring to before. One has got to wonder about the sanity of a law in that state which would permit such an individual to buy a gun.

And sure, history of mental illness hospitalization should result in an automatic preclusion to gun ownership. Why not? Your rights end where public peril begins.
I think this goes to what I was saying. I believe there was a statistic that indicated that a majority of the weapons used in crimes in New York came from Virginia. I wish I could remember where I heard that in the last 24 hours. And THAT cuts to the heart of the issue.

Why are these people going to Virginia to get their weapons?

Because it is a state that has shitty gun control laws period.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com