Job Discussion Forums

[laconic]

I have my opinion on this and it is one that agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the court did not seek me out for my opinion prior to deciding on theirs, I really believe anything less would not have been in keeping with the U.S. Constitution.

I expected this verdict and am pleased the Supreme Court decided as it did:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html

[SED]

Why do you even care what other people do in their own privacy?

[Jeremiah]

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment right to "bear arms"/own guns.

But, I do think the process of going about procuring a gun should be strictly enforced. It hasn't been in the past = Virginia Tech, Colorado incident etc...

[laconic]

[El Chupacabra]

The ruling is sound, but 5-4 is too close for comfort.

It's sound because all the other Billls of Rights are guarantees of individual freedoms, that is checks on what the government can do to us.

It's important to defend this right, as the 2nd Amendment guarantees all the other amendments, particularly the 1rst. When the people can bear arms and form militias, the government must act in ways that won't create popular dissent.

[Denizen]

That doesn't mean they won't try. Liberal administrations particularly have attempted to 'reinterprete' aspects of the Bill of Rights in order to gain a level of control over the public and limit dissention.

[geaaronson]

Actually if you look carefully at the actual wording of the Constitution, you will see that there is a condition placed on the right to bear arms. i 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. 2nd Amendment


The right to bear arms is only guaranteed if the gun owner is a member of a "well regulated Militia". This is one of the amendments that has never been interpreted correctly.

Does it bother me so much that gun rights are supported. No not necessarily. But in the strictest interpretation of the law the Surpreme Court has erred. If I were a lawyer, I should be easily able to argue the case.

If you don`t get my meaning, let me give you another example with similar syntax

You are speaking to your 17year old son. "Young man, since it is necessary for you to earn money at a part time job to further your education in college, I will allow you to stay up to midnight". Now, let`s answer the question truthfully, everyone who is reading this. Did I give my son permission to stay out partying until midnight on his days off from work?

[choudoufu]

[El Chupacabra]

[quote="geaaronson"]Actually if you look carefully at the actual wording of the Constitution, you will see that there is a condition placed on the right to bear arms. i 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. 2nd Amendment


The right to bear arms is only guaranteed if the gun owner is a member of a "well regulated Militia". This is one of the amendments that has never been interpreted correctly.[/quote}

Perhaps if the Founding Fathers had been English teachers, they would have seen the poor syntax in the original. Is this a list item, or determined by the condition of the preceding clause?

As i posted before, each of the Bills of Rights guarantees individuals from the tyranny of the confederation we call the United States. For the second amendment to be consistent with all the others, it must be interpreted from this perspective. And it has recently, in the Washington, D.C. case.

As someone else just posted, even the notion of militias is not clearly defined in the Constitution. It's certainly not the state national guards or reserve forces, as those are all under the control of the feds.

In Article I, Section 8, the Congress is given power to defend the States against invasion and in Article IV, Section 4, this power is given the depth of an obligation to defend each of the sovereign States.

In practice, militias are discouraged by the feds, no matter which Party is in power. Waco, for example, happened because David Koresh was manufacturing and distributing automatic rifles for his religious sect.

The right to form militias, then must also be an individual right. How much can each citizen of any sovereign States, within the confederated Union defend himselvfe or herself by banding together with others? OF course, if any of these individuals are prohibited from carrying weaponry then they will never be a threat to either their State or Federal government. That's one reason why a country like China, where I live now, can carry on policies from a single-party perspective.

The real issues underlying the gun control debate are about centralization of power. So whether you are a gun owner or not should, you should consider how much you are willing to submit to tyranny.?Thankfully, our Founding Fathers considered this in crafting the Bill of Rights.

[johnslat]

Dear El Chupacabra,

Yup, my AK47 is going to make sure the federal/state (elected) government doesn't impose its tyranny on me.

Boy, are the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard/National Guard going to regret knocking on MY door.


Regards.
John

[sparks]

I'm very pro-gun and right to carry arms etc. I just like guns and think that as long as there are so many in America everyone might as well have one or ten.

The thing about interpreting the Bill of Rights is that, for me, it is kind of like trying to interpret, say, The Bible. Both were written long ago and applied to issues which may not really be issues today. Military weaponry far outclasses anything your average Joe can buy in the gun shop or in the alley today. I don't think that worrying about quartering soldiers has been on people's minds for a while. Searching and seizuring? The police do that all the time.

[johnslat]

Dear sparks,

" . . . and think that as long as there are so many in America everyone might as well have one or ten."

The logic of that seems a little shaky, especially because of this:

"People own guns for protection. The idea is that, if someone breaks into your house or mugs you on the street, you will be able to shoot them. The logic seems simple and obvious, but what if this idea is completely wrong?
What if, instead, owning a gun makes it much more likely that you get shot?
Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault
In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
How could this be? The article offers no theories, but some possibilities might include:
1) When an assailant sees that the victim has a gun, the assailant takes a �shoot first� perspective.
2) When a victim has a gun, he or she is too confident or cocky, and that attitude leads to a bad reaction in the assailant.
3) The victim is too nervous or too poorly trained to use the gun effectively.


http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/

This is not the first study to show that guns are dangerous rather than protective. For example:

Keeping Kids Safe From Gun Accidents
In 2003, more than 2,000 children were killed by firearms, 182 from accidental shootings. Another grim statistic: More than 900 children committed suicide with a gun.

"Firearm accidents, especially among children, continue to worry parents and law-enforcement agencies, even though the numbers have dropped in recent years. Thirty-four percent of American children live in a home with at least one gun. The Centers for Disease Conrol and Prevention reports that 1.69 million children live in homes where firearms have not been put in safe places. In 2003, more than 2,000 children were killed by firearms, 182 from accidental shootings. Another grim statistic: More than 900 children committed suicide with a gun."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/US/story?id=1537300#.TrK4Zhxk95E

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/10/02/public-service-announcement-owning-a-gun-means-you-are-4-5-times-more-likely-to-be-shot/

Regards,

John

[sparks]

Dear John,

I've heard something before about how owning firearms doesn't keep you as safe as you'd think

It's the same as anything I guess. I'm the exception

[johnslat]

Dear sparks,

We all are - until we're not. It always happens only to other people. Ooops, to you, I AM other people.

Regards,
John

[sparks]

Well John,

I'm glad I'm not you or any of you other people who can't control your firearms.