Liberals go after Single Shot Black Powder guns now....

[Gator]

That doesn't matter, Congress doesn't interpret the Constitution only the USSC can do that.

Neither did the former Chief Justice, as the USSC did not rule, so, he said (mistakenly in my opinion) what his Personal opinion was on the matter.

If the USSC rules the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to individuals there ain't squat Congress can do about it aside from a constitutional amendment, which would be very difficult.

The USSC can choose to pick up a case right now, where as a Federal Court has already ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear is not only for the Military or Organized Militia. I also believe the Founders would not have needed to put a Clause in the Constitution granting the Military or Organized Militia the Right to use Arms or keep Arms at the ready.

And as the Constitution is already written and says the Federal Government "shall not infringe" with regard to this matter, so, the Congress would merely need to write a Code explaining what the "shall not infringe" means for the High Court to use as a guide, and thus in my own opinion not change the Constitution.
And I believe it would be a good first step if they looked at the Federalist Papers and such for any thoughts the Founding Fathers may have had on this issue.

 

[pixiedustboo]

it's an AMENDMENT....a change to the original document

Mmm, okay, lets change all of them again. Lets take away our free speech rights with our guns! Mute and weaponless.

 

[mmarsh]

Neither did the former Chief Justice, as the USSC did not rule, so, he said (mistakenly in my opinion) what his Personal opinion was on the matter.



The USSC can choose to pick up a case right now, where as a Federal Court has already ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear is not only for the Military or Organized Militia. I also believe the Founders would not have needed to put a Clause in the Constitution granting the Military or Organized Militia the Right to use Arms or keep Arms at the ready.

And as the Constitution is already written and says the Federal Government "shall not infringe" with regard to this matter, so, the Congress would merely need to write a Code explaining what the "shall not infringe" means for the High Court to use as a guide, and thus in my own opinion not change the Constitution.
And I believe it would be a good first step if they looked at the Federalist Papers and such for any thoughts the Founding Fathers may have had on this issue.

1. True, but it does give incite to what the court was thinking, even if it Does not actually rule. That was my point.


2. Of course it can! But the fact it has only heard 1 gun control case in 60 years is probably not a coincidence. I wouldnt hold my breath for the USSC to add this into their schedual.

 

[Gator]

1. True, but it does give incite to what the court was thinking, even if it Does not actually rule. That was my point.


2. Of course it can! But the fact it has only heard 1 gun control case in 60 years is probably not a coincidence. I wouldnt hold my breath for the USSC to add this into their schedual.

Well, the former Chief Justice is only one, out of 9, so it gives an idea as to what he was thinking, not the Court as a whole.

And I hope the Court picks up the issue now as I like the odds right now for a more favorable ruling, in my view.

 

[Kiwi]

+1!!


It is high on the agenda. It's #2. Some more liberal minded people are forgetting that, or choosing to ignore it.

If they can change one AMENDMENT they can change ANY of them.

Without a doubt, thats the thing if they get away with this anything is possible, little by little the country loses its culture. It happened in New Zealand, Canada, England, some extent even Australia.

 

[Gator]

Without a doubt, thats the thing if they get away with this anything is possible, little by little the country loses its culture. It happened in New Zealand, Canada, England, some extent even Australia.

We are quite fortunate in the United States that Amendments can be added to the Constitution, thus changing the Constitution as needed, and there are different ways to go about adding them.
Also, things that don't work out well can be changed back by adding another Amendment.
The best part is, in my opinion, the Founding Fathers (being wise beyond their time) left the Office of President out of the process.


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Infern0]

Without a doubt, thats the thing if they get away with this anything is possible, little by little the country loses its culture. It happened in New Zealand.

no it didn't.


our culture as a south pacific nation is stronger than ever now IMHO, now that every culture contributing to this nation gets (more or less) fair recognition. European, Maori, Pacific Islander, Chinese...all have made a significant and lasting contribution to New Zealand.

the only culture NZ has lost, is the european MONO-culture....and im gussing you got threatened by that and bailed.

 

[Del Boy]

no it didn't.


our culture as a south pacific nation is stronger than ever now IMHO, now that every culture contributing to this nation gets (more or less) fair recognition. European, Maori, Pacific Islander, Chinese...all have made a significant and lasting contribution to New Zealand.

the only culture NZ has lost, is the european MONO-culture....and im gussing you got threatened by that and bailed.

And why should one particular culture be lost? Enlighten us as to what exactly 'the european MONO culture' is please.

 

[Kiwi]

Inferno you are on my ignore list, you are gutless attacking me when you know I can't answer your posts, I will report you once again.

 

[The Other Guy]

he's not really even doing anything.

 

[mmarsh]

Well, the former Chief Justice is only one, out of 9, so it gives an idea as to what he was thinking, not the Court as a whole.

And I hope the Court picks up the issue now as I like the odds right now for a more favorable ruling, in my view.

Actually he was the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice holds a-lot of sway over the associate Justices. But yes its just one vote, but it does show that at least part of the bench doesn't agree with the NRA interpretation.

Given the current makeup of the court, its possible. I think the court would uphold the right to personally own a gun, but not the part "lassiez-faire" attitude of the the NRA.

 

[major liability]

There will always be crazies.

There will ALWAYS be a large number of unregistered firearms in America.

That alone is enough to make me want to legalize all firearms.

Who do you want armed, the criminals who buy the automatics smuggled in, or your (hopefully) law-abiding neighbor?

 

[mmarsh]

There will always be crazies.

There will ALWAYS be a large number of unregistered firearms in America.

That alone is enough to make me want to legalize all firearms.

Who do you want armed, the criminals who buy the automatics smuggled in, or your (hopefully) law-abiding neighbor?

Answer is simple: If their are always crazies why make it easier for them to get a gun? Doesnt it make sense to try and make it more difficult?

Secondly, how do you know your neighbor is a law abiding citizen? Does he wear a "Not-a-Kook or criminal badge?"

Take that guy Cho at Virginia Tech. Nobody knew he was a basket case until after he shot 31 people. Had Virginia had a system that monitored peoples medical histories they would have seen a history of mental health and depression. -Not the sort of person you want to sell a gun to.

And yet its exactly this type of system the NRA is vehmantly against.

 

[major liability]

Easier? No, actually it's much harder to purchase a gun legally. Usually more expensive, and of course you have the whole deal with background checks and waiting periods.

Even if all firearms were banned, just look how easy it is for ANYONE to sneak through the southern border. And look at those gargantuan cargo ships. They don't come close to checking every container. Gangs and such will still have access to Kalashnikovs while the average citizen is reduced to defending himself with a pocket knife.

I think requiring certification gained by passing a hands-on exam on safety and operation and a background check are all that is needed. Even though the idea of having a list of firearms owners is kind of unnerving to me.

In the end though, there is absolutely no way to prevent the slaughter of innocents by the insane. They're insane. They will find a way. They usually don't value their own lives; the only possible way to stop them is a bullet through the brain as soon as they produce their weapon. There aren't enough policemen in the world to prevent these things from happening, but maybe, just maybe, someone with a CCW will be around and able to save some lives.

One last thing; small magazines are fine for one threat, but what if there is more than one person after you?

 

[mmarsh]

ML

It is easier. I'll you have to do is go to a store provide ID and license (depending on the state) and voila.

Purchasing guns illegally is risky. You never know if the gun actually works, if the gun has been associated to a crime, you don't know if the seller is a cop, you don't know if you are going to get burned in the sale, you don't know if some will rat you out to the cops afterword, if its been stolen (which it usually has) etc.

Illegal guns are readily available but buying a gun is not as easy as you think it is.

Actually smuggling guns from other countries is very small, why bother? When you can buy them legally.

A Federal Database, isnt unnerving to me. Whats unnerving to me is people like Cho were able to buy one. If you are not a crook or nut you have nothing to fear.

The more guns you have on the street the more crime you have its simple math. Yes someone with a CCW might be able to stop a gunman, but you will also have much more gun crime. Its simple math, no trick to it.

About the magazine issue: Ever have a gun pulled on you? I have. It isn't like the wild west. When Guns comes out everybody bails, nobody wants to get shot. Besides 8-10 rounds should be more than enough, unless you cannot shoot for s*** and if thats the case you shouldn't have a CCW.

 

[major liability]

ML
It is easier.

Purchasing guns illegally is risky. You never know if the gun actually works, if the gun has been associated to a crime, you don't know if the seller is a cop, you don't know if you are going to get burned in the sale, you don't know if some will rat you out to the cops afterword, if its been stolen (which it usually has) etc.

Illegal guns are readily available but buying a gun is not as easy as you think it is.

I guess this depends on who, and where, you are.

A Federal Database, isnt unnerving to me. Whats unnerving to me is people like Cho were able to buy one. If you are not a crook or nut you have nothing to fear.

Registration leads to confiscation. Proven fact. You DO have something to fear, believe it or not.

About the magazine issue: Ever have a gun pulled on you? I have. It isn't like the wild west. When Guns comes out everybody bails, nobody wants to get shot. Besides 8-10 rounds should be more than enough, unless you cannot shoot for s*** and if thats the case you shouldn't have a CCW.

I don't know what your situation was, but why do you assume that your assailants will always automatically be scared off? Maybe they are more than untrained hoods.

 

[MontyB]

he's not really even doing anything.

Well he is responding to a post specifically mentioning New Zealand and he is a Kiwi so I cannot see what the issue is.

Surely it is acceptable to respond to incorrect information about your nation by someone living elsewhere in the world?

Registration leads to confiscation. Proven fact. You DO have something to fear, believe it or not.

Can you give me a list of countries where registration has led to confiscation?
(If possible the year they implemented registration and the year the started confiscation), I am not doubting your argument but I would like to see where and why it was done.

 

[mmarsh]

I guess this depends on who, and where, you are.


Registration leads to confiscation. Proven fact. You DO have something to fear, believe it or not.


I don't know what your situation was, but why do you assume that your assailants will always automatically be scared off? Maybe they are more than untrained hoods.

Registration

Where was it proven? I'd like to know that too. And even so not having a registration WOULD NOT prevent the Government from seizing guns. If the Government wants your guns they will take them anyway.

Aggression

Muggers want your money not your life, and they aren't going to risk their lives against a loaded handgun to take either one, even if THEY have a gun too. It doesn't matter if its a single-shot derrenger. Nobody is going to risk a gunshot for a few bucks.

 

[Infern0]

And why should one particular culture be lost? Enlighten us as to what exactly 'the european MONO culture' is please.

delboy, we still have a european culture and tradition, but it doesn't dominate the cultural landscape as it once did.

Inferno you are on my ignore list, you are gutless attacking me when you know I can't answer your posts, I will report you once again.

im on YOUR ignore list, you're not on MINE. there is no reason why i should refrain from commenting on your babble when it's blatantly false.

 

[Del Boy]

delboy, we still have a european culture and tradition, but it doesn't dominate the cultural landscape as it once did.


.....................................................


Having not been in New Zealand since circa. 1950, i am seriously interested. Do you have a seperate maori culture, a seperate South Pacific culture, a seperate chinese culture and a seperate European' culture? And do they confine themselves to their own areas basically, and do they strive to maintain the seperateness of their cultures?

From my time there, I don't recall much in the way of european population. All seemed ultra British, or ultra-english rather to me, with the exception of Dunedin with its Scottish traditions, and, of course, the widely distributed Maori population.

I am trying to recall the areas I browsed - Auckland, Wellingtom, Christchurch, Lymington, Port Chalmers, Dunedin, Gisborne, Napier and various Roras spring to mind. Oh, and Pitcairn of course. I forget others, I played a lot of cricket locally. I really took to it - it was like a lush, over-blown English countryside, bigger and richer flora -wise. It sure was the most English of places, and the favourite jumping ship post for English seamen. The girls liked them, and if they managed to stay for a while, the authorities seemed very lenient, not usually deporting. Your national cricket team looks just about as it always did, very English.

I think you and Monty are winding me up - I think you are still England in disguise really, just straining to appear sophisticated and grown-up as an independent country!! Little England in disguise! Why has it taken me so long to work you out ?