With the cooperation of law-abiding citizens.
Thanks, I appreciate the lack o’ snark. There are folks who have put together far better explanations that I can, and that I agree with. Far more elegant. I personally fall in line with the following. Most of it relies on the original intent of the framers:
So there you go. Anyone who seriously attempts to defend the status quo of gun rights, or at least someone who wants to add to the discussion, should be able to explain their thoughts on the “well regulated” bit without any hand waving. I quoted someone else, but it is what I base my opinion on.
The cited opinion piece places its main emphasis on the need for the people to be able to overthrow, or at the very least resist, the tyranny of the government. Seems to me that issue is long since settled by the outcome of the War Between the States. Or, as some insist on calling it, the Civil War.
Not sure I follow. The North overthrew a tyrannical govt. in the South? The South was unable to defend itself from a tyrannical govt in the North? The people of the North should have risen against the Federal govt as Lincoln razed the South?
No. I was assuming you had read your own cite, am I mistaken?
Does this have two different meanings, or only the one?
Gotta be that way huh?
I’ll ask again, which tyrannical govt should the people have overthrown? If you meant the south, my initial thought is that most of it’s citizenry was just fine with secession.
So, then, the radical wing of the Black Panthers was right? That, being an oppressed minority, they were entitled to armed resistance? Sure you want to go down that road?
I wasn’t aware they were involved in the Civil War, or are you changing your point again?
I answered China Guy’s question. If you want to debate the definition of “well regulated” again, start your own thread. Or review any number of other threads where it has been thoroughly discussed.
Before I would approve any law, whether its related to guns or not, I would want to know the purpose and what it is trying to prevent. Is there a rash of gunshot victims that result from someone irresponsibly handling a firearm that a mandatory safety class would solve? Are there significant numbers of people who violate the gun laws that would not otherwise violate them if they simply knew the law? Is the cost of this program worth the damage it can show it prevents?
I’m always leery of mandatory classes for anything because it teaches to the dumbest idiot in the room. Most of the people in the class know already what to do and the morons that are there will sit through the class and go out and do what they aren’t supposed to anyways.
Nicely evaded. Have you considered bullfighting as a hobby, where artful avoidance of the point is laudable?
Since I have no clue regarding what, if any, point you are trying to make, I suggested that you start a new thread. Can’t let it drop? Not my problem.
And I would assume that any needed training would be provided free of charge from the government. Otherwise it would amount to a poll tax.
Well, let me help with that, perhaps if I break it down into bite-size pieces. You offered a cite, which I presume you meant to be taken seriously, and not as some exercise in droll humor.
I quoted your cite, as follows:
Unless I am much mistaken, and you are invited to correct, this quote offers the proposition that the 2nd Amendment was framed and intended to offer legitimacy to a citizen rebellion against a tyrannical government. But the question arises about the legitimacy of such rebellion, since the actual meaning of “tyrannical” is open to interpretation.
The secessionist states defined “tyranny” according to their own lights. But if armed rebellion to preserve the ghastly condition of slavery is legitimate, and force of arms also therefor legitimate, then what cause of rebellion is not? If we can say that the secessionist rebellion was legitimate, then how could it be that the armed resistance of an oppressed minority is not?
The reasoning offered by your citation confirms the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny, then the Black Panther’s program of armed resistance to oppression was at least as legitimate as that of the secessionist states. Indeed, a fair-minded person might well find it to be more legitimate, rather than less.
By my own light, a pledge of allegiance to our country is a pledge to honor its processes, however slow and plodding those processes may be. It does not specifically forbid armed resistance, but does it need to be said? When and if our bold experiment in governance reaches its perfection; when we are, in fact as well as ideally, a government by, for and of the people, how could resistance to such a government be legitimate?
You offered the cite, not I. If you cannot defend the clear implications of your citation, perhaps you ought to withdraw it?
Feinstein is a blithering idiot. This gun control bill is just more of the same.
Well, that certainly settles that!
Feinstein is a strong supporter of illegal warrantless wiretaps, was the co-sponsor for the extension of the PATRIOT Act and wants to limit civilians’ access to firearms. She is not so much anti-gun as pro-police state.
So, pro gunners, what regulations would you suggest as being reasonable?
I think you all agree that the unregulated sales are a problem, probably don’t want people with mental issues buying guns, and that checks/waiting period might be a good thing, etc. But don’t let me poison the well, what would you suggest since Feinstein has her head up her ass (always did, too, back in the 1980’s when she was the SF mayor, we knew that)? What’s a practical and useful way to dial back the less than optimal situation we’re in now?
Interesting article concerning the efforts of the “gun lobby” to stifle statistical research on the public health consequences of gun ownership.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
Further comment unnecessary.
Again, from my perspective the current laws are reasonable. Have we seen that private sales are responsible for additional gun violence to the point that we should require neighbors who sell a gun to one another need to go through the federal system?
Lanza’s Mom would have passed a background check. Lanza himself would have. One of the Columbine shooters was 18 and would have passed a background check. For what purpose are we requiring background checks for private transfers that would prevent what we are trying to prevent?
I’m really not trying to be unreasonable. I just don’t want to pass a law that won’t prevent the next crazy person from getting access to guns as an excuse that the previous law was too weak and start down the slippery slope. Criminals will still sell each other guns and make sure to file off the serial number or not leave the gun at the crime scene.
You seem to be saying that current laws are reasonable and that current laws seem to be ineffective. That leads me to believe that asking you for advice on how to write an effective gun law would be the same as asking the fox for advice on how best to secure the chicken coop. It seems to fit a pattern I’ve noticed in some gun threads:
Poster A- “I would support a gun law if it was reasonable”
Poster B- “Well, what about these proposals?”
Poster A- “Those proposals are slippery slopes to gun banning!”
Poster B- “Well, can you come up with a proposal to deal with the problems we face?”
Poster A-“What problems?”, or “Your proposals won’t work”, or a deafening silence.