The Gun Thread

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Automobiles did not exist at the time the 2'nd was written. However nobody at the time suggested horses or wagons had to "licensed, inspected, insured etc. Weapons and horses have nothing to do with each other. Automobiles have nothing to do with the second amendment and trying to pretend they do is merely obfuscating the issue.

- Peter.

So you, in other words, favor the easy sale of firearms to the mentally ill?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

So you, in other words, favor the easy sale of firearms to the mentally ill?

Liberals are citizens, too.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

So you, in other words, favor the easy sale of firearms to the mentally ill?

No. I do not favor it. But I have a problem with screwing up the US constitution on the basis of the mentally ill. Or any other particular group for that matter.

- Peter.

[JollyRoger]

Are you saying there is no enforcement mechanism for keeping drunks and the mentally ill from operating automobiles?

[JollyRoger]

How sad that that all takes place after someone is killed instead of before. My assertion is that because of the nature of weapons, we need a mechananism to weed out people who should not have guns before they massacre a room full of people. It would require the same things it requires to own a car, with an additional requirement of a standard physcological test, in fact, because it involves a well-regulated militia, I recommend the US Army's test, it does a wonderful job of keeping crazy people from enlisting, and I bet it will do a fine job in making sure we have no crazies in our Well Regulated Militia as well. If a person can pass such a test, pass another showing he knows how to operate a firearm safely and a background check, he would be granted a license. He would then be required to register his weapon's serial number with the US Official Well-Regulated Militia Database, just like the US Army does in it's database with the weapons that it has. Finally, he would be required to obtain a liability policy for the weapon. Voila, a well-regulated militia.

[Da Nag]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

And no one denies that right to citizens in good standing. A mental case, a criminal, a dope addict, none of these are citizens in good standing. A person should have a right to own one, as much as they have the right to own an automobile, and like an automobile, it should be registered, licensed and insured, in other words, like automobiles, well regulated to keep nuts, alcoholics and addicts, and criminals from operating them. Simple common sense.

How original - the car argument. The only redeeming feature of such tripe, is the instant illumination of the presenter's ignorance.

To wit...I'm sure you'll have no problem with equally restrictive limitations, on the Amendment immediately preceding the one you don't understand.

I propose, that you no longer be allowed speak on the matter, until you've shown you comprehend the difference between rights and privileges.

Careful now...no typing until you've proven you're qualified.

[cmbdiesel]

Methinks there are some here who fear the test.

[Da Nag]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Methinks there are some here who fear the test.

When it comes to any of our enumerated rights, you bet - guilty as charged.

In fact, the only thing I fear more, are the ignorant masses who can't comprehend why the protections are there to begin with. Such a mindset is far scarier, than any inanimate object.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by Da Nag

When it comes to any of our enumerated rights, you bet - guilty as charged.

In fact, the only thing I fear more, are the ignorant masses who can't comprehend why the protections are there to begin with. Such a mindset is far scarier, than any inanimate object.

Rights have limitations

[Da Nag]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Rights have limitations

Correct. However, all the limitations expressed here, rise to the level of infringement.

Disagree? If so, let's hear about all the acceptable licensing, registration and competency tests that are acceptable for speech.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by Da Nag

Correct. However, all the limitations expressed here, rise to the level of infringement.

Disagree? If so, let's hear about all the acceptable licensing, registration and competency tests that are acceptable for speech.

Give me a little time, I'm still working on the reproduction tests

There are, however, limits on your free speech - libel, slander
I'm sure there would be more, if words could kill you.
You've got to remember that your rights end where my nose begins.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

... A person should have a right to own one, as much as they have the right to own an automobile, and like an automobile, it should be registered, licensed and insured, in other words, like automobiles, well regulated to keep nuts, alcoholics and addicts, and criminals from operating them. Simple common sense.

I didn't know that cars were a constitutional right and when were you first required to buy a license for your mouth?

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by Botnst

I didn't know that cars were a constitutional right and when were you first required to buy a license for your mouth?

Think of the licensing as an extension of the background check that you seem to be fine with. After all, why does the 2nd amendment use the phrase well-regulated? Obviously it was to allow the government to regulate guns as it sees fit. Just like the 1st amendment, the 2nd one is not an unlimited right.

[Da Nag]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

After all, why does the 2nd amendment use the phrase well-regulated? Obviously it was to allow the government to regulate guns as it sees fit.

"Well regulated" - it meant no such thing at the time it was written.

However, feel free to join with the others here who continue to spout such nonsense - regardless of how many times, the error of this assumption is pointed out.

Search to your heart's content. The issue is not open to any rational debate; when taken in it's historical context, historians who agree that "regulated" means "controlled", are respected about as much as flat earth proponents.

[Da Nag]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

You've got to remember that your rights end where my nose begins.

Sorry, but that's far from an absolute truth.

It depends entirely, on where you've decided to stick your nose.