Umm, I checked the Constitution, and guess what?
I didn’t notice the number “45” anywhere.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Constitution before you decide to comment on it.
Did I say it was? Please learn how to read before you make a feeble attempt at debating.
According to U.S. law, every able-bodied man between the ages 17-45 is part of the Unorganized Militia, one-half of the “militia” mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. The Unorganized Militia is as recognized by law as the Organized Militia (National Guard, etc.).
Again, please familiarize yourself with the law before you decide to comment on it. And keep in mind that there’s more to the laws of the land than what is found in the Constitution.
Umm, the Constitution is “Supreme” relative to any other “law” in the U.S.
Thus, if Congress passes a law saying that “militia” means people between certain ages; or that “militia” means the merchant marines; or that “militia” means an ice cream sundae – it doesn’t affect the Constitution one bit.
I advise you to actually look at the Constitution before you engage in feeble attempts to debate its meaning.
WAE: *I did make some other points, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. *
Fair enough. I’ll be gone for a week or so, however, so I will do what I can with them if they’re still here when I get back.
passes spoofe a cold beer
Walk away spoofe…walk away…
This one is just to dense to absorb what you are trying to say.
BTW…
I just checked my handy dandy copy of the Constitution, and I’m off to speed around the highways at 120 miles an hour. Somehow those lame framers forgot to mention speed limits.
When I run out of gas, I’m going to just take whatever car is closest to me. It seems they also forgot to mention theft.
Ummmm…well, no they won’t be going anywhere, I don’t think. They archive these threads for over a year. If it gets buried, I will be sure to bump it for you 
Enjoy your trip 
But it’s not the ONLY law, genius. Other laws of the land, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (you DO know that things like traffic laws aren’t in the Constitution either, right?) are perfectly valid as long as they’re not directly contradicted by the Constitution.
So? The Constitution also doesn’t affect that law one bit, since that law doesn’t directly contradict the Constitution.
See, pal, other laws are designed to elaborate on the wording contained within the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment makes mention of the “militia”. A later article elaborates on exactly that “militia” is.
I wasn’t debating on the meaning of the Constitution. I was debating on other laws not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Did you know that the Constitution makes no mention of, say, child pornography? By your logic, that would make child pornography perfectly legal.
So let’s suppose Congress passes the following law:
“We hereby declare that the word ‘arms’ in the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers to bananas and other tropical fruits.”
I suppose that would settle things . . . :rolleyes:
Well since you seem to be trying to define the word “people” as “State” then that line of reasoning seems to be tight up your alley.
Would you mind trying to show where the original framers had a different definition of the word “militia?”
BTW…
You look awfully foolish with that kellerman quote.
Please keep up the good work.
Aw, come on, Freedom, it was either Kellerman or the “13 children die every day from gun violence” “fact”.
ps. at least it’s not the original 43 number first bantered about…
Sure would. But good luck getting Congress to pass that law.
But since we’re playing on your lowered level of consciousness… suppose the whole planet suddenly transformed into an exact replica of a zit on Pauly Shore’s ass! Wouldn’t that be amusing? Nyah, nyah, I won the debate 'cuz I posed an utterly ridiculous and senseless hypothetical that has no chance in ever reaching fruition! Nyah, nyah!
(And your use of the “rolleyes” smiley… why am I suddenly reminded of fatherjohn?)
So let’s suppose Congress passes this law:
“We hereby declare that the word ‘press’ in the First Amendment to the Constitution refers to Q-Tips and other minor toiletry items.”
Golly, we could have some fun with this game!
You know, I never would have considered Q-tips to be “toiletry”. Perhaps we should get Congress to pass a law describing what Q-tips are, too… and, for that matter, what a “law” is, what “Congress” is, and what “describing” is.
Then we need Congress to pass a law providing a definition of what “is” is.
Psst… sjgouldrocks… Congress’s laws seem to jibe with the definitions found in the dictionary. Crack one open (they contain knowledge, so be careful… it might be frightening for you) and look up the word “militia”.
Once again, from the talk.politics.guns.pro-gun FAQ:
You can change your sig now, sjgouldrocks.
Score???
One of the problems I see, regardless of the level of control desired by the various posters or any organization, is that the control/restriction/ban has to be enforced to be effective.
Lightning and Cranky are both in the “need some more restriction” camp, and have valid points, but I feel their arguments need to be taken to the next logical step: implementation. Show how their goals can be implemented, reasonably and fairly (maybe those caveats make this a loaded question), the have the effects they desire with a higher order of probability that 50/50. Cranky made a point in what I think was his first post in this thread about increased restrictions stemming the criminal violence. To this I say: unfounded correlation and erroneous assumption.
The erroneous assumption is that widespread gun ownership has an automatic inherent criminality attached to it; the unfounded correlation is that removal will automatically reduce criminality or criminal impulses by those with criminal intent.
Anti-controllers, such as myself, have long held that reducing criminal impulses, or removing the criminals altogether (about as probable or realistic as gun bans), is the way to go. It is the criminal who breaches the peace and rightful activities of the law-abiding by breaking the covenants of society to trespass in people’s homes, steal their property, forcibly rape other individuals, etc.
Gun Control Measures and their anti-control counterparts of tougher penalties are both Band-Aidssub[/sub] on sucking chest wounds and arterial bleeding; addressing the underlying causes of crime and criminal mentality will have a better chance of instituting truly rehabilitative penal measures, or possibly of identifying the criminally inclined before they become criminals.
Wierd-Al: you are my newest personal Straight Dope Super Hero! Your side debate with Darwin’s Finch is probably the real crux of any Gun Control Debate. Controllers fear, generally, the otherwise normal-seeming citizen going berserk. Their arguments, as represented here on the SD for several years, would leave me to believe that they are nervously scanning their surrounding environments constantly for “some whacko” with a gun.
Anti-controllers, as we feel that control measures won’t impede criminals (and secretly believe that total-gun-banners know this as well) fear incrementally more restrictive measures, each as equally unsuccessful as the preceding, all in the pursuit of “common sense gun control” so as to “reduce violence in our communities”.
Don Skotus:
And is their need any more valid than their fellow citizens who disagree with their logic? Why aren’t these people you mention seeking to address the true causes of violence and criminality, rather than its gross symptoms? Might not equality in education, professions and income alleviate the desire to seek profit through crime, specifically violent crime? Might not better programs be instituted to identify, at an earlier stage of development, individuals with violent tendencies, and get these people the help they need before it’s too late?
This is essentially the “other side of the coin” that Sarah Brady and her ilk refuse to acknowledge and address; even the mass media ignore it in pursuit of “more gun control”.
Lightning:
Did you bother to call the police?
[Rambling Rant]
There seems to be a mistaken impression, especially among foreigners, but also disturbingly frequent among my fellow Americans, that we are in a “no control”
state, vis-a-vis gun control. That anybody can walk into any gun store and load up on an arsenal of firearms. While containing a kernel of truth, it is grossly misrepresentational. At the Federal Level: felons, the mentally defective, habitual substance abusers, the dishonorably discharged, convicted spouse abusers, non-resident aliens, persons under restraining orders against domestic violence, and expatriates are a few of the categories that come readily to mind as being proscribed from purchasing firearms. Note the word: firearms. All-inclusive coverage of powder-projectile weapons.
There is a national database of such individuals, maintained and operated by the F.B.I. When anyone, in any state, attempts to purchase a firearm at a gun store, a form is filled out, with some simple yes/no questions. This form also contains personal information like full name, address, and social security number.
The dealer then calls up this national database and runs your personal info by them. Within a few minutes (this is, after all, The Age of Information) an answer is given to the dealer as to whether or not they may proceed with the transaction.
The individual states, though, vary widely. Some, like Texas, Virginia or Vermont have no real restrictions other than the federal; others, like California and New York, have considerably tougher restrictions in addition to the federal. A citizen, simply by crossing a state line en route from point A to point B can become a felon. Let’s say I have a scheduled hunting trip in Maine, and I choose to drive. The moment I cross the New Jersey state line headin’ north, I become a criminal for possessing a rifle without a permit for that state, even though my home state doesn’t require it!
So, in addition to Freedom’s list of wants, I’d add:
Federal Preemption Law to restrict states from imposing tougher levels of restrictions over the federal level, -or-
Travel and Tourism Clause to allow legal carry across state lines, regardless of state restrictions (as long as that state isn’t the final destination)
Six Feet Under is on, I’m gonna go watch it and get back to this later.
Thank you ExTank I try my best. I don’t think I have any super powers though, except for very brief periods after I drink some strong coffee 
Actually, I meant last night to stand up and salute (as far as that can be done on a message board) another poster, namely Anthracite, for being willing to go and dig up the cite on the Kellerman study, the sort of thing I am generally much too lazy to do. Hey Anthracite, I heard somewhere that vampires have whadayacallem? like, human flunkies that work for them and do stuff for them during the day when Vampires can’t go out.
Can I be your flunky?
Oh and BTW, you have no doubt noticed that Darwin’s Finch and Don Skotus appear to have abandoned this thread, leaving me the last word. So, do I win on points? Or do I have to wait until Kimstu returns and see how that turns out? What are the rules? ExTank, Anthracite, you’ve both been here longer than I have…fill me in
What you win, Mr. Einstein, is the privilege to participate in the next gun thread…
Yeah, I know… kind of a lousy reward. But, hey, it’s better than some cheap toaster oven.
Lol that’s what I thought…it’s a neverending battle…
It’s like killing a hydra. Chop off one head and two more appear. Sometimes the use of fire (flames) will seal things off, but here in GD that is not the way to conduct oneself.
I stopped participating in these gun debates for a while…well, actually, I stopped participating in GD altogether because of one Ass Goblin who made me unhappy. Now he is gone, so I will be visiting quite a bit more often.
It’s always been my understanding that you COULD travel through states without fear of this sort of situation. I’m 90% sure that there is a federal pre-emption of this sort of thing.
I think there is also a clause covering your time spent in a state if you are there for a short time to compete in a shotting match.
However…
If you go through NJ on your way to Maine without stopping by for a Dopefest Shootingfest, then I’m going to register a sockpuppet and hound every gun thread I see with Kellerman quotes:)