BuffettNews.com

SharkOnLand wrote:

creeky wrote:I feel safer here than when I am in the USA ..... ie, I did not walk out at night in New Orleans, but I would do so here in Sydney. Less likelihood of getting shot .....

How much of that is just being familiar with the area though? There are places that are safe and places that are unsafe in most any larger city....

Well I am about as familiar with most of sydney as I am some of the cities I have visited in USA - cause I stick to where I live - but it does feel safer.

Just knowing that we have a lower crime rate, the any tom dick or harry is not carrying a weapon - only the hardened criminals that get them illegally - and they are a few ...... and that things such as most knives and knucklebusters are outlawed - just makes it safer.

Not to say crime does not happened - we had a guy today that did himself and his three kids in - which proves anyone can snap and do stupid things - so the more people with weapons = more of this sort of thing happening.

Just my 2c worth - coming from a place that in the last decade or so introduced gun control ... and I dont believe anyone has the right to bare arms - we are all humans - it just seems stupid you have to feel you have to carry a weapon to feel safe - I would move if Sydney got like that ...

creeky wrote: ... and I dont believe anyone has the right to bare arms - we are all humans ...

Yeah, but do realize how hot we would get at a tailgate wearing long sleeve Aloha shirts?
Only the pets get to stay cool?

sigh...I just don't see much good in people having guns in their homes...they are seldom used for good and often used for evil. (ex wives and girlfriends seem to be favorite targets)

nutmeg wrote:sigh...I just don't see much good in people having guns in their homes...they are seldom used for good and often used for evil.

The same could be said for televisions. I own a semi-automatic weapon and understand the rush from shooting. I never considered it as a self defense weapon - It would be difficult since the gun, clips and bolt are stored in three different locations. My parents do own a handgun for 'protection' and I believe they will be one of those "accidental shooting" household stats in the future. They live in the suburbs and are afraid of their neighbors kids (the vandalism they have experienced is the reason) I understand their fears and frustration with the authorities/parents in preventing the problems.

Do they sleep better with a gun in the house? Not really, they don't feel safer they do believe they will "survive" and "get even" if the kids do break in. Yeah, they are moving someday. I never thought of them as gun owners, in fact my mother threw a fit when I purchased my gun at age 18. Should they be allowed to have a gun, absolutely, do they need it? I don't think so but they do and being adults it is their choice not mine or anyone elses (they are not convicted felons)

Part of the problem I see is people want to keep passing laws, we have laws now, if they were enforced and followed we wouldn't need new and improved laws to prevent the current laws from being broken.

flyboy55 wrote:I don't recall such a mention of 'crewed' weapons in the Second Amendment.

Are you talking about some later 'interpretation' of the Second Amendment by a government body? If so, this appears to be exactly what folks object to, ie. having the legislative or judicial branches make interpretations of the Constitution to suit circumstances.

A literal reading of the Second Amendment gives me the 'right' to keep either of the weapons I mentioned.

Flyboy are you as much of an advocate for the abolishment of campaign finance? After all it restricts free speech rights of every person running for election and every person who supports a particular candidate? Not to mention restricting the ability of the press to print what it wants about a particular candidate.

Are you this outspoken when any religion is persecuted for it's practices, to include Christianity? Where those polygamists in Texas unfairly treated? They were praticing their religion.

I could go on, but I think this illustrates my point.

Or are you simply trying to stir this pot?

flyboy55 wrote: So if I understand you correctly, the intent of the Second Amendment is to make sure the citizenry has access to enough fire power to overthrow the government ("whatever it takes").

Yes. That was a large portion of the original intent.

Would you say the Second Amendment allows me to have guided missiles with nuclear warheads?

No. We've already discussed this, although cannons were owned by private individuals in some circumstances (ship captains/owners, for one). This is a foolish line of argument anyway. At the time it was written, no one could have forseen the kind of weapons technology would give us. For small arms, the argument could be made that ANY military hand weapon would be allowed under the 2nd. At the time, the people owned weapons that were in some situations technologically superior (and therefore deadlier) than military issue. (kentucky long rifles v. smoothbore muskets)

This isn't a frivolous matter. I've heard a lot of people express the opinion over the years that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

No, it isn't....and yes, it does. Unfortunately, the arguments will continue until the end of time as to what they actually meant.

Furthermore, the same people hold that attempts to regulate the firepower available to citizens (handgun bans, limitations on clip sizes, background checks, restricting access to fully automatic weapons, etc) constitute an infringement of citizens' constitutional rights.

Handgun bans are unconstitutional.
Limitations on clip size are STOOPID.
Background checks are fine.
Restricting access to full auto ranks up there with clip size and waiting periods as something that is done purely for appearance. It looks like we're doing something about crime when none of them have any effect. All of the above could be seen to be an infringement.

If that is the case, should private citizens have at their disposal enough firepower to overthrow the U.S. government (ie missiles, nuclear weapons, etc)?

As originally intended, yes....but technology has rendered that inoperable.

nutmeg wrote:sigh...I just don't see much good in people having guns in their homes...they are seldom used for good and often used for evil. (ex wives and girlfriends seem to be favorite targets)

Question: is that really the case, or is it because EVERY time one is used wrong you hear about it but the times when they're used to protect someone you seldomly hear about it?

nutmeg wrote:Just curious....for those of you who feel you need to keep guns on hand to defend your home/family from armed intruders is it it that common an occurence where you live?

It only needs to occur once.

And I believe that it would be a much more common occurence if the intruders knew that the occupants of the homes they were breaking into were unarmed.

nutmeg wrote:Just curious....for those of you who feel you need to keep guns on hand to defend your home/family from armed intruders is it it that common an occurence where you live?

Can you name one area of the USA that is immune to crime - that there's not home intrusion, rapes, robbery?

How many times do you hear on the news "we never thought it would happen here"

Has anyone in my area been broken into? yes - hell Don had his car stero ripped off once. Car sitting in drive.
Has anyone died from gunshot? well there was that suicide
Have the police ever searched for a potential "suspect" in my area? Yes got woken up bright and early one morning from the noise the cops were making. Hell the Green River killer didn't live that far away.
Have I seen wild animals in my area. just evil bunnies, coyotes, raccoons and the occasional bear.
Do I know how to shoot - you bet your a$$
Will I shoot a animal attacking my precious dog - OH HELL YEAH
Would I shoot an intruder - shoot to kill, don't wound them kill them

I live in a nice area too - outside town in a section that was an unincorporated section of the county. We recently got annexedx into the city.

any more questions?

flyboy55 wrote:This isn't a frivolous matter. I've heard a lot of people express the opinion over the years that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You've "interpreted" the 2nd amendment in your own way. It could also be two completely separate thoughts:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Not knowing the original intent of the writer, the comma could easily be interpreted as a separation of two separate thoughts.

SharkOnLand wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:This isn't a frivolous matter. I've heard a lot of people express the opinion over the years that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You've "interpreted" the 2nd amendment in your own way. It could also be two completely separate thoughts:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Not knowing the original intent of the writer, the comma could easily be interpreted as a separation of two separate thoughts.

nope
go read the opinion, you'll get an interesting lesson in language and how laws are written in the english language.

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:I don't recall such a mention of 'crewed' weapons in the Second Amendment.

Are you talking about some later 'interpretation' of the Second Amendment by a government body? If so, this appears to be exactly what folks object to, ie. having the legislative or judicial branches make interpretations of the Constitution to suit circumstances.

A literal reading of the Second Amendment gives me the 'right' to keep either of the weapons I mentioned.

Flyboy are you as much of an advocate for the abolishment of campaign finance? After all it restricts free speech rights of every person running for election and every person who supports a particular candidate? Not to mention restricting the ability of the press to print what it wants about a particular candidate.

Are you this outspoken when any religion is persecuted for it's practices, to include Christianity? Where those polygamists in Texas unfairly treated? They were praticing their religion.

I could go on, but I think this illustrates my point.

Or are you simply trying to stir this pot?

Well I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not advocating anything at this point. But the literal reading of the Second Amendment favored by many gun advocates doesn't rule out my owning some fairly heavy firepower. There is an inconsistency here somewhere.

As for 'stirring the pot', I didn't start this thread. Neither have I been arguing either for or against gun control to this point in the thread.

I simply asked a question which goes to the heart of gun control/ Second Amendment debates. If the Second Amendment means what it says, nothing more nothing less, then why can't I own a self-propelled Howitzer, or nuclear missiles?

The only responses I've read so far are all interpretations which endorse an infringement (I can't own whatever weapons I want) which contradicts the supposed intent of the Second Amendment.

This is all well and good, and I like to hear the open exchange of people's opinions on this, but in reading this thread is has led me to a much, much more important question:



Just where do I find those tilted kilt girls?

I believe tha Second Amendment gives me the right to carry a weapon. That weapon must be properly registered and correctly used, loosely akin to an automobile. If I use the weapon incorrectly, I can be fined or criminally charged, much like with an automobile.

I don't carry a weapon every day. But in certain circumstances and environments, I've sure been glad I had it if I needed it. There are certain places (malls, for instance) that I now prefer to carry a weapon, since those places have become targets for nutcases who want to go out in a blaze of glory.

Staredge wrote:

flyboy55 wrote: So if I understand you correctly, the intent of the Second Amendment is to make sure the citizenry has access to enough fire power to overthrow the government ("whatever it takes").

Yes. That was a large portion of the original intent.

Would you say the Second Amendment allows me to have guided missiles with nuclear warheads?

No. We've already discussed this, although cannons were owned by private individuals in some circumstances (ship captains/owners, for one). This is a foolish line of argument anyway. At the time it was written, no one could have forseen the kind of weapons technology would give us. For small arms, the argument could be made that ANY military hand weapon would be allowed under the 2nd. At the time, the people owned weapons that were in some situations technologically superior (and therefore deadlier) than military issue. (kentucky long rifles v. smoothbore muskets)

It may have been discussed, but you didn't provide any evidence that 'crewed weapons' were meant to be excluded from Second Amendment protections.

You state that no one could have forseen the kind of weapons that technology would give us, and imply that advances in weapon technology not forseen by Second Amendment authors, should not benefit from Second Amendment protection.

Would you object if someone were to use this argument to claim that automatic and semiautomatic weapons (technological advances since the Constitution was written) are not protected under the Second Amendment?

Staredge wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:If that is the case, should private citizens have at their disposal enough firepower to overthrow the U.S. government (ie missiles, nuclear weapons, etc)?

As originally intended, yes....but technology has rendered that inoperable.

Here again, you seem to be implying that technological advances have the power to make portions of the Constitution (including Second Amendment guarantees) obsolete, which would necessitate either legislators or judges coming up with appropriate laws/rulings.

I don't necessarily disagree with that point of view, but many folks would. They call it "legislating from the bench".

We're going to be here all day, caught up in this circular argument. I'll see if I can find the original article I saw that brought up the difference. I suggest you read the decision, if you haven't already. I believe most of the questions you ask were addressed.

There's a big difference between interpreting the Founder's meaning and 'legislating from the bench.' We rely on the Court to interpret in the face of changing circumstances. The Heller decision is a good example. The majority opinion cites the references they used. The decision in Kennedy is a good example of legislating from the bench. Try reading it as well & tell me if you see a difference.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:here's the court's opinion. i highly recommend reading it. i learned alot you will too....

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Thanks for posting the link. Interesting reading.

Since handguns were banned in D.C. for almost 30 years the criminals just went out and bought assault rifles

What was the first thing you did on September 11, 2001 after the initial shock wore off?

I know what I did...and Walmart was almost out of ammo by the time I got there. I am not a gun fanatic but don't think it cannot happen here..obviously, it can and it did.

I have the right to bear arms and protect myself and my family.

popcornjack wrote:This is all well and good, and I like to hear the open exchange of people's opinions on this, but in reading this thread is has led me to a much, much more important question:



Just where do I find those tilted kilt girls?

SPEW!!!! Keyboard please!!!