The OK case

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And whenever the "marry a goat" argument was brought up it was immediately crushed by a simple phrase we all agree on, i.e. "consenting adult".

Now please tell me whwer the clear line is between what is allowed to be owned without w permiot and what is.  If you think that it is a silly argument then show it is silly by proposing a simple definition we can all agree on.

How did you "crush" the marry my mom or the 16 year old I love?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 01:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It took quite a while for the individual right to own firearms to become the interpretation of the Second by the courts. Changing the interpretation is judicial activism.

You go with judicial activism had to be employed to make "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." an individual right.

Of course there is and has been debate, but I will share mine:

It pointed to the purpose and need of an armed citizenry and stated because of this need the Federal Government will not infringe the individual's right to own a weapon necessary for defense. Just because we currently don't need a civilian militia does not mean an individual no longer has the right to own a weapon.

What if we go to war with China and while doing so Mexico invades California. SSF decides to form a Militia to repel the invaders, he goes by Matt's house and says "Grab your weapon and follow me". Matt says I don't have one as I didn't have the individual right to own one.

You state it took/takes a lot of judicial activism to make it an individual right. I say all you have to do is read the sentence.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You go with judicial activism had to be employed to make "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." an individual right.

Of course there is and has been debate, but I will share mine:

It pointed to the purpose and need of an armed citizenry and stated because of this need the Federal Government will not infringe the individual's right to own a weapon necessary for defense. Just because we currently don't need a civilian militia does not mean an individual no longer has the right to own a weapon.

What if we go to war with China and while doing so Mexico invades California. SSF decides to form a Militia to repel the invaders, he goes by Matt's house and says "Grab your weapon and follow me". Matt says I don't have one as I didn't have the individual right to own one.

You state it took/takes a lot of judicial activism to make it an individual right. I say all you have to do is read the sentence.

So your argument is that all of the interpretations from day one were "judicial activism" until they agreed with your view than they were right.

All based on one sentence fragment.

Brilliant and not hypocritical at all.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 04:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: So your argument is that all of the interpretations from day one were "judicial activism" until they agreed with your view than they were right.

All based on one sentence fragment.

Brilliant and not hypocritical at all.

Nope I referred to the entire sentence by bring up the mention of a Militia. what part did I leave out?

BTW, "my view" is that you should have a permit for any weapon that leaves your house.

I have no idea where the hypocritical accusation came in.


Do you want to share your interpretation of the 2nd or just stick with the "gotcha" attempt?

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2017, 04:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How did you "crush" the marry my mom or the 16 year old I love?

You should be able to marry your Mom if you want to, and I don't consider  a 16 year old and adult.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 04:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope I referred to the entire sentence by bring up the mention of a Militia. what part did I leave out?

BTW, "my view" is that you should have a permit for any weapon that leaves your house.

I have no idea where the hypocritical accusation came in.


Do you want to share your interpretation of the 2nd or just stick with the "gotcha" attempt?

The hypocritical part is calling any decision that disagrees with your view as "judicial activism" and any that agrees is correct.

You quoted one part (bolded here) of the entire amendment:

Quote: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.

I assume it was done to show how the courts were wrong until they agreed with you in order to show how "judicial activism" was what happened BEFORE they agreed with you.

anyway, your hang up with "gotcha" is rather annoying though.  If you don't want anyone to ever doubt or question what you say you might be in the wrong place.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You should be able to marry your Mom if you want to, and I don't consider  a 16 year old and adult.

You should be able to posses an AR 15 if you want to, and I don't consider sarin gas as a weapon for home defense.


See. Just the same. Thanks....

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 04:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: The hypocritical part is calling any decision that disagrees with your view as "judicial activism" and any that agrees is correct.

You quoted one part (bolded here) of the entire amendment:



I assume it was done to show how the courts were wrong until they agreed with you in order to show how "judicial activism" was what happened BEFORE they agreed with you.

anyway, your hang up with "gotcha" is rather annoying though.  If you don't want anyone to ever doubt or question what you say you might be in the wrong place.

So that's a no on your interpretation of the second?

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that's a no on your interpretation of the second?

Sorry, forgot to respond to that.

My interpretation is that you have a right to own a gun.  And that that right can be regulated.  Such that if the need arose for a civilian militia they could be armed accordingly.

However I am no legal scholar.  I just personally believe that you everyone should have that right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Do you know how many times I've gone turkey hunting and the damn turkey was down in some dead space and wouldn't come any closer? Grenade launcher is exactly what I need in those situations. So it has a legitimate hunting application. Plus a grenade launcher with M781 ammo is great for target practice. The best part is that a M203 is single shot, breech loaded without a selector switch for burst or auto fire and no pistol grip so definitely not a "weapon of war" or an "assault rifle."

[Dill]

(04-05-2017, 12:37 AM)hollodero Wrote: That I do not get. Confiscation would be a clear breach of your Constitution, that's not likely at all. If you think confiscation is on the table, I would like to know where this perception comes from. You said some reality, so what reality?

Start with the Turner Diaries. http://www.resist.com/The_Turner_Diaries.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

The book details a violent, apocalyptic overthrow of the United States federal government (referred to throughout the book as "the System") by Turner and his militant comrades in a brutal race war that takes place first in North America, and then the rest of the world.

The story starts soon after the federal government has confiscated all civilian firearms in the country under the fictional Cohen Act. [LOL get it, "Cohen" is a Jewish name] Turner and his cohorts take their organization underground to engage in a guerrilla war against the System, depicted as dominated by Jewish control.[2] The "System" begins by implementing numerous repressive laws on various forms of hate by repealing laws against rape (as rape laws are often viewed as "racist"), by implying that gender exists on a biological level, by making it a "hate crime" for white people to defend themselves from crime by non-whites even after all weapons are confiscated, and by pushing for new surveillance measures in order to monitor its citizens. . . . .


Fortunately, Turner and like-minded survivalists were smart enough to HIDE their weapons, so when the government came to take them, they couldn't find them. This core of fearless, weaponized patriots seize California and eventually take down the system/government. Turner gives his life in a suicide mission fighting for "freedom" and the white race.    

Pansy whites who don't have guns get robbed and raped and killed by all the blacks looting in the big cities. Blacks eventually turn back to cannibalism, before they are eradicated in North America in a great civil war--only this time the rebels win!  Liberal race traitors beware.

[Dill]

(04-04-2017, 09:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Based on what training and experience?

Based on years of reading right wing forums and blogs, and following newspaper accounts of right wing violence.

[Dill]

(04-05-2017, 04:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: So your argument is that all of the interpretations from day one were "judicial activism" until they agreed with your view than they were right.

"They" are judicial activists. "We" just follow the Constitution.

[Dill]

(04-05-2017, 12:37 AM)hollodero Wrote: That I do get again. I don't advocate against said insurance, I just would like everyone owning a deadly weapon to know how to handle it, much like with the deadly weapon "car". I don't think that's unreasonable.

Responsible parents in all countries would likely agree that children should be taught from a young age.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2017, 08:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Based on years of reading right wing forums and blogs, and following newspaper accounts of right wing violence.

So, none.  Got it.

[Dill]

(04-05-2017, 10:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, none.  Got it.

So some. Get that.

In your view, what sort of expertise would be required to determine whether armed persons were dangerous.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 10:35 PM)Dill Wrote: So some. Get that.

In your view, what sort of expertise would be required to determine whether armed persons were dangerous.

Don't know about SSF, but I'm going to go with their words and actions. You seem more like their appearance type

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2017, 10:35 PM)Dill Wrote: So some. Get that.

In your view, what sort of expertise would be required to determine whether armed persons were dangerous.

Maybe experience dealing with armed people?  How about being trained to notice cues and body language.  How about experience dealing with people involved in criminal activities so you can observe these cues in a real life situation.Looking at your computer screen doesn't mean much, if anything at all.  Context might be important.  Thanks for making this easy for me though, I had a long day. 

[Rotobeast]

(04-05-2017, 08:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Responsible parents in all countries would likely agree that children should be taught from a young age.

No booger-hooks on the triggers, check....... not pointing at another human, check.

I'm good with this.

(04-05-2017, 10:35 PM)Dill Wrote: So some. Get that.

In your view, what sort of expertise would be required to determine whether armed persons were dangerous.

I'm ok with both groups.
I would be concerned a bit with the group hiding their faces though.
Although, with those shorts..... I'm guessing.... Brazil ?
I'd trust neither, in Brazil.

[hollodero]

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They didn't imagine fighter jets and ballistic missiles, no, but I will point out that the military weaponry of the day was muskets and cannons, and civilians were most certainly allowed to own muskets and cannons back then. (I imagine cannons were less commonly privately owned, but I guarantee that civilian ships had them.) The 2nd Amendment is based part around staying capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government, part because the British did indeed start doing gun confiscations of all known owners before the Revolution, part because there was no realistic way for people to be protected by police in the rural areas, and part to put food on the table.

All four of those are still viable reasons today.

Well... more or less viable. Things have changed quite a bit since 1791. Overthrowing a tyrant with an armed civil militia sounds like civil war (tyrants have supporters too), and I do not think that scenario is realistic enough to justify free guns. The British, I suppose, accepted their loss by now and won't sail across the ocean to invade you anytime soon. Indians, bears, wolves, French, Spanish and whatever was fought back there isn't part of everyday existence. Canadiens are peaceful and Mexicans can't possibly declare war for there's soon an esthetically pleasing wall in their way. Hardly anyone really depends on shooting something to eat and survive. The rural areas are probably the most viable reason... and ok, however one sees it, I am not for a gun ban anyway (given it's impossible to begin with, the way your society feels and thinks), I am just for licences.
Just as I am also for licences to go hunting. Transform a turkey into kebab with a grenade launcher... licence please. I think that's reasonable enough. But sure, many years of socialistic tutelage culture talking here.

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The problem when you start talking about potential victims is then we're punishing people on what-ifs. The US isn't The Minority Report yet. Still have to commit the crime and be proven guilty before you can be punished. Blind with a gun is obviously no longer a what-if, obviously, that's just simply a certainly, but it's rarely going to be that clear cut.

Part of my problem with the psychologists getting involved is... there's no guarantee they will keep their political views out of their decisions. In fact the odds are much more likely that it will influence their decisions quite a bit. Say you have an adult who had their parent die and took it pretty rough and was on anti-depressants for 3 months. That was say.. 2 years ago and they haven't been on them for 21 months now. Thinking it'd be a good vacation, they want to buy a gun to go on an Elk hunting trip. The psychiatrist sees that they were once on anti-depressants but is more or less fine. Would a psychiatrist who is staunchly anti-gun be more likely to deny that guy?

If it's a government payroll psychiatrist, who's going to be the one who appoints/hires them? There's been plenty of mandates from a political party in power to other governmental groups that influence things quite a bit. Take for instance a few years back when the IRS was specifically targeting Tea Party political groups that were applying for tax free status, while letting Democrat groups through normally. That was leading up to the 2012 election.

I wouldn't say I "punish" them, but that sure depends on the viewpoint. I am for licences that cost some dollars, sure, and I have no problem with that. I don't see it as punishment for a "crime". It's more a safety concern. So I kind of refute the Minority report analogy.
With this "what-ifs", we do that all the time, avoid possible dangers. Thereby restricting freedom. Speed limits restrict my freedom, too. And it's not so much that I think I need them, I'm smart enough to avoid stupid accidents and decent enough to slow down in a village. But many people aren't, that is proven again and again. Many people are idiots, and those idiots define these legal necessities, always do. And potential victims of that need to be protected - by indeed punishing the speedsters. The one paying a fine for speeding hasn't harmed anyone, but I'm all for fining him for he's a potential idiot. Which he is by being a human. 
While that logic doesn't apply 100% to guns, it's kind of my way of thinking about these what-ifs. 

And with the psychologists, that sure is a legitimate concern, but I would just use a very common sense definition. History of depression wouldn't qualify as reason to deny someone a licence - all these people might do is intentionally killing themselves with the gun, and that I consider a human right. I would, however, say that people with severe disabilities should be banned from gun ownership. Like people with delusions, or schizophrenics, or mentally disabled people, people on strong medication, really the big mental troubles. I don't see a problem there for a law could be quite distinct what might qualify as being psychologically unfit and what does not.

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: See, and I find a license for a dog absolutely silly. Lol... as we've seen in Europe, if people want to murder people, they will find a way. A knife/axe/vehicle/bomb is just as bad. Also if they're really insistent, it's not impossible to get guns there.

That is definitely true. But other means of murder don't even come close to outweigh the gun death statistics. We in Europe simply have a way lower murder rate overall. (You have about 4 murders per 100.000, the western European countries are more or less all wthin 0.5 to 1 murder/100000.)
Regarding guns, there's just this:



...and this just needs to make people think. Not that I say a conclusion like mine is inevitable, I don't think your murder rate goes down to 3/100000 or even lower if there were gun licences. It would be a bit lower though, in all probability.
And these are aspects that need to be outweighed. Is licence-free gun ownership important enough that it outweighs the yearly deaths that could be avoided with licences. I don't have the answer for that one, I don't claim it's the ethical thing to do to react with licences, I don't want to make that kind of bully argument. But it is a legitimate part of the debate.

Oh and with the dogs, that licence thing happened sometime after there were some incidents of killed children by Rottweilers or something like that. One dog owner had the infamy of blaming the little dead kid for not knowing how to behave when facing a wild Rottweiler. And the parents for not teaching the infant that. The outcry was so loud that laws were inevitable, and yes, I'm still for them. A Rottweiler is a potentially deadly weapon (most of them are sweet, I know) and I want people that have those kind of deadly dogs to know what they are doing. 
In Vienna that dog licence thing was decided by vote, I voted for licences, it was the democratic way to handle that. I don't know how effective that really is, but I sure am still for that and still think it's perfectly reasonable, but well.

Would you be open to have the people decide in a nationwide poll if there should be gun licences? Just curious. That's what I would propose if I had some say.

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: See, here in the US, anytime someone tries to do anything that'll potentially inconvenience poorer people, it is called racist. States that try to make having a State ID a requirement are pretty much roasted by the Left as racist. In the case of guns, I simply don't want to pay someone money to own the property I already own. Lol

I learned that. I widely agree with the "non-leftists" on that one, the racist card is played whenever to silence opposition, and it's often just a knockout argument not based on reality or facts. IDs as requirement for voting is so logical to me, I can't really get why anyone... ok, different topic. I try to avoid debates about race, I'm not knowledgeable enough and the topic is too sensitive, so I shut up.
About the money, I get that you don't want to pay, but I don't care :) I'm perfectly fine with taking your 200 Dollars or whatever so you can keep your gun. Again, I understand you, I just don't care, I want to make that one perfectly clear :) State could use the money, and better milk the gun owners than the poor or the meals on wheels dependants.

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I will bring up the point of Switzerland. They have one of the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and going to ranges to shoot is a hobby for them. If you grow up around it, it's normal, and you're taught properly, it's not a problem. The government even issues their militia (basically all men 20-30) weapons and until fairly recently issued ammunition for them, as well.  They also subsidize ammunition for it if you want to get some shooting in with it. 

Meanwhile Switzerland had 18 attempted or completed homicides involving guns in 2014. In a country of over 8m.

Couple things. First, crime often comes with bad ecomomic situations, and if you're Swiss you probably aren't in a bad situation, that country is filthy rich, so there's that. 
What I really wanted to say is that this example, of course, supports your view better than mine, I can see that. Swiss are rich folks, that's what I attribute that to.

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And bacon I am sure is slowly killing us all, but I sure as hell am not going to stop eating it.   The merit of gun ownership is a lot more personal when you know the police will never get to your house quicker than 20 minutes, unless one just so magically happened to be nearby. Also if you enjoy some deer jerky and sausage. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Eat bacon all you want, the only one that is endangered by that is you, while guns endanger other people. Example denied :)
The rural area thing is a point I do get, of course. Again, licence... not taking the gun away.

To important stuff, I love deer in its natural state, which is on my plate. Only few people do here. And unfortunately, it's the social dictate here to only eat deer with cranberry jam, and it's often smeared all ower the poor deer, that stuff leaves a taste that doesn't go away. So annoying. I could spend hours talking about that special kind of lapse of taste, but I won't.

(04-05-2017, 04:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I see a bit where you're coming from on some of it, I just think it's really a culture gap that we'd probably never be able to bridge unless you grew up where I grew up, and I grew up where you grew up. Lol

That is definitely true. I'm not so much into bridging the gap, more into understanding the "other side"... which I do. It doesn't change my view though, I weigh the arguments and the balance still leans towards licences for me. A bit less heavy maybe, but still quite heavy.