All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Chat about non-hiking topics. The least serious of the forums on the site!
User avatar
renegadepilgrim
Posts: 585
Joined: October 15th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Contact:

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by renegadepilgrim » May 24th, 2013, 2:41 am

Lurch wrote:All that said, I'm definitely a gear hound, so I'd be curious to know what carry solutions you guys have found out there? I know CamelBak had a short run 'demon' series for concealed carry, and have a new "urban assault concealment" bag (probably not the best name) that I believe is limited to LE and Military sales..

Maxpedition puts out a number of good packs, but I haven't hiked with any of them. Short of a chest rig in cold weather, or a few oddball full cover holsters I've found few options that would be comfortable, accessible and concealable with a full pack on. Thoughts?
Have you tried Hill People Gear?
http://www.hillpeoplegear.com/Products/ ... fault.aspx

I thought Kifaru also made some CCW pouches for the front of packs, but I can't find them on their website.

I'm leaning towards the HPG products. A friend of mine gear tests for them. They are local too. Central Oregon. Most of their stuff is made in the USA if I remember correctly.
Travel and Outdoor Adventure Website: http://www.renegadepilgrim.com
Instagram/Tumblr/Twitter: renegadepilgrim

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by xrp » May 24th, 2013, 5:04 am

Peder wrote:
Lurch wrote:Peder: Nice try but the 18th was in 1919, far outside founding fathers and bill of rights territory ;)

But that's WAY outside the spectrum of this thread, so I think it honestly comes down to just a couple questions.

1. Do you oppose the idea of concealed carry?
2. Do you oppose the idea of open carry?
3. Does the type of weapon matter?
4. So long as there is no criminal intent, does the reason for carry matter?
5. Does location matter?.
I think that I had a very valid point by mentioning the Eighteenth Amendment: That amendment was replaced and other amendments can likewise be revised. These are “Amendments” (not Commandments!) after all and, in my opinion, not carved in stone.

Furthermore, the Prohibition of Alcohol was a wise decision, as the consumption of alcohol causes numerous deaths: For example “Teen alcohol use kills about 6000 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined.” (source MADD) and 40% of traffic deaths are alcohol related, as is the case for suicide attempts. Worse, 54% of all violent crimes are alcohol-related, 60% of all emergency room admissions are alcohol-related and 80% of all domestic disputes are alcohol-related. (source)

So banning alcohol, an addictive drug that does so much damage in our society, can be justified. That said, I would regret missing my annual glass of Château de Tomroy on Mt Whittier. :(

Therefore, if the Eighteenth Amendment were still in place, the US would be a healthier and safer place. Other decisions imposed by authorities, such as imposing the use of seatbelts in cars, reduces the number of road fatalities.

That brings me to the Second Amendment, which refers to the militia that became the National Guard in 1903. The National Guard website describes the history as follows: “Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.” Obviously, when the “militia” became the National Guard in 1903, the Second Amendment became obsolete or should have been updated.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court (of “corporations are persons” fame), the NRA and the gun industry deliberately misinterpret the Second Amendment to their end. Sadly, guns are deadly and the US statistics reflect this: Other than the fact that about 60% of gun deaths are suicides, the daily carnage is appalling. Heroes defending their home or fighting crime do not cause these deaths. It is mostly senseless deaths and injuries, such as an 11 year old killed by her army veteran stepfather practicing his quick draw or a police officer shot by a schizophrenic middle-age woman during a routine traffic stop.

In the interest of public safety, and to protect people from themselves, stricter gun laws would make a lot of sense: Firmer gun laws will save lives, just as the law forcing us to wear seatbelts saves about 9,500 lives in the US every year. Therefore, for those of us with compassion for fellow humans killed by guns, improved gun regulations seem logic and mandatory. With sensible gun laws, the 11-year-old girl and the police officer would both still be alive today...
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

You're right. The Founding Fathers were talking about the National Guard and the defense of the nation, not freedom and Liberty, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. :roll:

Also, you need government to force you to wear your seatbelt?

Of course, during the 1920s when alcohol was prohibited, no one had access to alcohol.

If cars were banned, 32,000+ people per year would still be alive today. Cars are regulated, registered and licensed -- yet we still have the fatalities.

If knives were banned, 1,800 people per year would still be alive today.

If we all had chains on our hands and feet, 800+ people per year would be alive today.

If blunt objects (hammers, tire irons, etc) were banned, 675+ people per year would still be alive today.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
You are now suspect.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14424
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by retired jerry » May 24th, 2013, 5:56 am

The prohibition of alcohol showed that doesn't work - too many unintended consequences like strengthening organized crime.

Recent education campaigns and laws against drunk driving have been fairly effective.

We should do same with guns. Don't talk about making them illegal, educate people and enforce a few reasonable laws regulating them.

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Koda » May 24th, 2013, 6:00 am

" Therefore, if the Eighteenth Amendment were still in place, the US would be a healthier and safer place."

Didnt the prohibitioon create a huge uncontrllable black market and organized crime?

And sorry, the 2A is not about the National Guard.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
Chase
Posts: 1265
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Chase » May 24th, 2013, 6:13 am

Peder wrote:
Furthermore, the Prohibition of Alcohol was a wise decision, as the consumption of alcohol causes numerous deaths: For example “Teen alcohol use kills about 6000 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined.” (source MADD) and 40% of traffic deaths are alcohol related, as is the case for suicide attempts. Worse, 54% of all violent crimes are alcohol-related, 60% of all emergency room admissions are alcohol-related and 80% of all domestic disputes are alcohol-related. (source)

So banning alcohol, an addictive drug that does so much damage in our society, can be justified. That said, I would regret missing my annual glass of Château de Tomroy on Mt Whittier. :(
Peder, the reason the 18th was reversed had to do with the fact that it was ineffective. It was a law that enforcers found impossible to enforce. Many of the enforcers broke this law themselves. Harsh sentences were imposed on violators of this law. Organized crime went through the roof. Country folk with distilleries came to hate the government so much that this hatred continued through the 90's and citizens willingly aided and harbored Eric Rudolph, a terrorist by most definitions, rather than help the FBI.

Peder wrote:
That brings me to the Second Amendment, which refers to the militia that became the National Guard in 1903. The National Guard website describes the history as follows: “Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.” Obviously, when the “militia” became the National Guard in 1903, the Second Amendment became obsolete or should have been updated.
Updated, yes. Xrp's list of quotes does not trump this point. Koda's point about the National Guard is overruled by the larger argument in Peder's paragraph. Peder wins this one.

Peder wrote:
In my opinion, the Supreme Court (of “corporations are persons” fame), the NRA and the gun industry deliberately misinterpret the Second Amendment to their end. Sadly, guns are deadly and the US statistics reflect this: Other than the fact that about 60% of gun deaths are suicides, the daily carnage is appalling. Heroes defending their home or fighting crime do not cause these deaths. It is mostly senseless deaths and injuries, such as an 11 year old killed by her army veteran stepfather practicing his quick draw or a police officer shot by a schizophrenic middle-age woman during a routine traffic stop.

In the interest of public safety, and to protect people from themselves, stricter gun laws would make a lot of sense: Firmer gun laws will save lives, just as the law forcing us to wear seatbelts saves about 9,500 lives in the US every year. Therefore, for those of us with compassion for fellow humans killed by guns, improved gun regulations seem logic and mandatory. With sensible gun laws, the 11-year-old girl and the police officer would both still be alive today...
Not just seatbelts, Peder. Other safety features from road design to child car seats and airbags have saved thousands of lives. In 1974, 54,000+ people died in car accidents in the U.S. In 2012, 32,000+. Why? Because we, as a society, demanded safer cars*. [Keep in mind, also, that the population of the US went up 50% in this time!]
So, yes, although many people will claim it steps on their civil liberties, our lack of initiative to get this "daily carnage" of guns under control is a disservice to humankind.

*Gun enthusiasts seem to hate auto death and gun death comparisons, but I think it is applicable if we're all on the same page that guns and cars are both tools that result in over 60,000 deaths annually (combined). When the numbers get this large, we have responsibility, people.

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by xrp » May 24th, 2013, 6:30 am

Updated, yes. Xrp's list of quotes does not trump this point. Koda's point about the National Guard is overruled by the larger argument in Peder's paragraph. Peder wins this one.
Good luck getting it "updated". I win and so does freedom.

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Koda » May 24th, 2013, 6:33 am

Updated, yes. Xrp's list of quotes does not trump this point. Koda's point about the National Guard is overruled by the larger argument in Peder's paragraph. Peder wins this one.
I dont see how the use of the National Guard overrules or redefines the 2A? Didnt Kep point out the grammatical usage, in either wording 'the right of the people...' is its own clause!
*Gun enthusiasts seem to hate auto death and gun death comparisons
Thats because no one is voting to take away cars. IMO every gun control law today is merely a prohibition on law abiding citizens. None of today's gun control laws affect criminals, its been another felony for a felon to possess a gun for years.

Maybe the problem is the gun community isn't able to exercise their rights. If we wanted a gun free country, we should have prohibited them at its beginning. Now its too late. If your going to have an armed citizenry then you must not prohibit the law abiding who chose to exercise their rights.

We should do same with guns. Don't talk about making them illegal, educate people and enforce a few reasonable laws regulating them.
I agree about education. I think if we took all the money wasted on gun control prohibition and put into gun education there would be a much different picture in the right direction. Stop making guns taboo, weapons have been a part of mankind since the beginning.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by xrp » May 24th, 2013, 6:40 am

Koda wrote:
Updated, yes. Xrp's list of quotes does not trump this point. Koda's point about the National Guard is overruled by the larger argument in Peder's paragraph. Peder wins this one.
I dont see how the use of the National Guard overrules or redefines the 2A? Didnt Kep point out the grammatical usage, in either wording 'the right of the people...' is its own clause!
Not only that, but in Heller, SCOTUS ruled it is an individual right.

Something many people seem to overlook is the Miller case in the late 1930s. SCOTUS there ruled, unanimously, that the People have a right to bear the same arms as the military.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense

Lurch
Posts: 1271
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Aurora
Contact:

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Lurch » May 24th, 2013, 7:42 am

Back to the 2nd eh? ;)

I wouldn't say the Dick Act makes the 2nd null, if anything it makes it stronger by defining the difference between the organized and unorganized militia. Note that 'militia' is used in both.

Plus everyone focuses on the the militia bit and glances over 'the right of the people' part. "The people" in every other use within the constitution refers to the individual, not a representative of the feds. Up until around WWI the National Guard (aka the states militia) was the states military, and not allowed to be deployed over seas, until they got the grand idea to force dual registration to the 'National Guard of the United States' when you sign up for the guard.

As for the other argument putting Guns on the level of alcohol, I'm not sure where to go with that.

Alcohol kills far more than guns. swimming pools kill more kids than guns. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, and a number of accidents. To me that says that the logical approach would be mental health support, and proper education. Part of the problem is that the gun is being vilified and made taboo to the point that people don't even want to talk about it, or they are afraid to send their kid to a house that may have a gun in it.

Education, awareness, and exposure to proper and responsible gun handling and use would probably drastically reduce accidents. All without limiting the perceived 'freedoms' of those of us "gun nuts." When the only knowledge or experience with guns comes from hollywood, or gang violence, that is the only way people know to think about them. I do my best to promote a good and healthy image of a pro-gun person, and most of the people that I know who are serious about it do the same, I choose not to associate with the others.

You can't look at the number of deaths and jump to a fairly drastic decision to limit what has been a fundamental right for a few hundred years. Like it or not it's ingrained in our culture, and embracing it by make it safer is going to get FAR more support from the gun culture than you would otherwise. Talk of tweaking the 2nd to be more modern is fair, I wouldn't deny anyone the ability to brainstorm and have an open discussion, but changing the US Constitution isn't going to magically change anything. Depending on how it would be changed it would quite possibly violate many state constitutions.

Oregon has our own constitution, and starts off with the Natural Rights Inherent in People. Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] 44 states have constitutions specifically mentioning the right to bear arms, and 31 of them specifically call it an individual right.

I honestly don't see how any of the recently proposed gun laws would have any true effect on the violence in the US, since none of them are actually addressing the problem, and don't stand up under honest scrutiny IMHO. The new push for another 'assault weapons ban' for example is pure fearmongering and using recent tragedies to push knee-jerk laws that are either already in effect in different ways under current statute and simply not being enforced, or would be nearly completely ineffective at actually impacting gun violence.

/ramble done

:D

User avatar
Peder
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Peder » May 24th, 2013, 8:12 am

Chase wrote:Peder, the reason the 18th was reversed had to do with the fact that it was ineffective. It was a law that enforcers found impossible to enforce. Many of the enforcers broke this law themselves.
I am well aware of the above Chase - Mexico suffers ample violence due to our refusal to legalize other "drugs" and the simplicity of smuggling assault weapons from the US into Mexico. I will be without my computer until Monday, as I am going to the beach without a PC. I will enjoy ignoring this debate for the next 60 hours until I reconnect with the world. Meanwhile, a heartfelt "thank you" to all involved for keeping the tone very civilized.
Some people are really fit at eighty; thankfully I still have many years to get into shape…

Post Reply