I am very disappointed...

[dejapooh]

< wants his cake and to eat it
I think it's a Constitutional right to own guns. However, I'm not all that keen on someone I might anger having a 50 cal machine gun on his car. Or landmines or grenades, or rpg's. So my reading is the Fed has the right to some regulation.
And so far, I don't know of them randomly invading citizens houses to take or even register guns.

Here is the sticking point for me. I agree with you. I do not want people owning land mines, bombs, RPG's and so on. Then again, I basically agree that the 2nd amendment is a specific right to rebellion. A right of Revolution. Self Protection against criminals is really secondary to the intent and function of the 2nd amendment. Then again, do I want clinically insane people getting weapons at the drop of a hat? Do I want Dangerous convicted criminals getting high explosives? It seems that naturally, the 2nd amendment needs restriction and that some of us, due to our actions, have caused a situation where the society through the government has to take the initiative to exclude us from some of our basic human rights, including and specifically the right to rebellion. Then again, if the government is allowed the right to exclude people from that right, does the right exist at all? The government would obviously see anyone who wished to end the government (even for valid reasons) as a threat and exclude their basic rights... which means that as soon as you give the government the right to exclude some from their right to rebellion, the right ceases to exist in any meaningful way. I can see the argument for all or nothing. Let Joe communist buy high caliber machine guns and RPG. It is his right to rebellion. Is it all or nothing? I am very split on this.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

BoR was written to guarantee government did not try to trample on rights we are born with.

 

[hvacker]

Any ideas about "God's will" are based on assumption. Any ideas about God's involvement in our Constitution are also assumption. The ideas of Life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness are either inspired by God (Gods) or a utopian ideal or just a guy that thought it sounded cool. As more laws fill up our libraries the more we will experience loss of those ideals as most laws are about limiting them.
The 2nd will always be redefined as a limiting of that liberty.
A Dylan song has a line "Even the pawn must hold a grudge" Many arguments about the 2nd sound similar.
A society will attempt to preserve itself by what ever means necessary. Radicals beware!
The mindset that seems to inspire the radical support of the 2nd is anarchy. The only Law is that there should be no Law. Welcome to the jungle.

 

[dieselram94]

As most know, I am on the pro gun side.
To give up or severely diminish a right because of the actions of a minute few is foolish. It plays right into Saul Alinski's book Rules for Radicals, "Never let a crises go to waste"

Something to think about......

 

[dieselram94]

Crispin, you mentioned all citizens should have access to firearms. That gets into the criminals getting them. To this I say why are they out and about free and not in prison somewhere? I don't think any reasonable person wants criminals to have guns. But the reality is legal or not they will have them. Laws only effect the lawful portion of our society. This should make a interesting thread.....

 

[G.I.B.]

I have, and carry, a firearm for personal protection.

If I have to shoot someone, they should stay shot. No medical attention, no doctors trying to fix 'em.

 

[Crispin]

Crispin, you mentioned all citizens should have access to firearms. That gets into the criminals getting them. To this I say why are they out and about free and not in prison somewhere? I don't think any reasonable person wants criminals to have guns. But the reality is legal or not they will have them. Laws only effect the lawful portion of our society. This should make a interesting thread.....

I'm switching sides again...now I am progun.

Criminals are defined based on societal norms and laws. As Hvacker and dejahpooh have pointed out, the action of being of MAN fundamentally gives us the right to rebel against or leave the society. Exile is not an option for people who have broken the laws of society and no longer have a desire to stay in it. The only other result is punishment...ie...prison. Our prisons are not rehab facilities; nor, in my opinion, should they be. My idea of a criminal may be fundamentally different from what others are. The laws of our government do not supercede the constitution and BoR. The BoR does not define criminals...that changes based on time and society. Slavery is a great example. Civil rights, women's rights, you know the drill. Therefore, what may be criminal at one moment can be totally legal the next. Hence, I reject labeling people as criminal as justification to deny them the right to bear arms.

Criminals serve their time and do their punishment. When they are returned to society they should be afforded the same basic rights of the BoR. Do we stop allowing criminals free speech? Do we stop letting criminals from having any of the other amendments? Cherry picking the 2nd amendment from criminals is fundamentally flawed.

If society does not want criminals to have access to guns then the solution is either the death penalty or life in prison for violent crimes. This would stop them from getting a gun again. Setting up parameters like 'mentally insane' or 'criminal' does nothing more then stigmatize individuals and chip away at the second amendment.

Crispin

 

[Crispin]

Out of curiosity. If somebody entered your house and attacked you or your family....and you responded by shooting them in the chest...and they were completely incapacitated...would you put a bullet in that person's head to finish them off? Would you shoot them again in the heart? Would you delay calling 911 until that person died? There is a fine line between self defense and murder. Our constitution does not give us the right to murder.

Crisp

 

[dejapooh]

Any ideas about "God's will" are based on assumption. Any ideas about God's involvement in our Constitution are also assumption. The ideas of Life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness are either inspired by God (Gods) or a utopian ideal or just a guy that thought it sounded cool. As more laws fill up our libraries the more we will experience loss of those ideals as most laws are about limiting them.
The 2nd will always be redefined as a limiting of that liberty.
A Dylan song has a line "Even the pawn must hold a grudge" Many arguments about the 2nd sound similar.
A society will attempt to preserve itself by what ever means necessary. Radicals beware!
The mindset that seems to inspire the radical support of the 2nd is anarchy. The only Law is that there should be no Law. Welcome to the jungle.

"Life Liberty and Happiness" is Thomas Jefferson's propagandized version of "Life, Liberty, and Property" Written by John Loche. Jefferson was working with/for the rich in order for them to protect themselves from taxes that hit THEM rather than taxes that taxed the poor. Who used paper, which was taxed by the stamp tax? The rich read newspapers and books. The Rich signed contracts, and land agreements. The Tea Tax? The rich drank tea, the poor were forced to drink ale, beer, or heaven forbid... WATER (gross). The Tax revolt that was the American Revolution was a process of the rich duping the poor into fighting their war for them. The poor would have been better off with the British taxes on Luxury, rather than the Tariffs the US survived on, which taxed the Products the poor used in order to protect the Rich's industry.

 

[Crispin]

Ok Crisp Medical question (Debatable??) Drug studies, When you get a prescription you receive a read out of all the side effects Well how did they determine these, are people just Ginny pigs for a few $$$ some even say death can occur Did some one die from these.

I once was told to take Plavix a blood thinning slicker I was told that I would have to be on it for life. While being in the hospital I was approached to be in a study After one year I would either receive a plavix or a placebo pill. So I asked if I got a placebo and I died would I be the one they were talking about in the side effects?


I declined and stayed on the slicker, after about 2 months I was prospecting in arz. and got tangled in some devil thorns and almost bled to death. So I started cayenne pepper and via. C. No problems Rainbow blood test are all positive.

So I'm asking are these worth it?

Onfire: There is a fierce debate on usage of Plavix. I am not expert enough in that area to advise.

As to Side Effect lists: It is mostly cover my azz legal garbage. They do studies with 1000s of people for six months at a time. If anybody reports a symptom at any point in time during that six months it becomes a side effect. What are the chances that 1000 people go six months without a headache? What are the chances that 1000 people go six months without diarrhea or constipation. The FDA has made side effect lists a laughing stock, they are best to be ignored. Before you start taking a medication, ask your doctor what the COMMON side effects are. For SSRIs, the only COMMON side effect is anorgasmia.

Crispin

 

[Peyton Manning]

Out of curiosity. If somebody entered your house and attacked you or your family....and you responded by shooting them in the chest...and they were completely incapacitated...would you put a bullet in that person's head to finish them off? Would you shoot them again in the heart? Would you delay calling 911 until that person died? There is a fine line between self defense and murder. Our constitution does not give us the right to murder.

Crisp

Living in the country, the ambulance response time would result in death

 

[Peyton Manning]

BTW Crispin are you really a Doc? what field? do you give tnet members free advice?

 

[dejapooh]

Once the attack stops, anything less than seeking immediate assistance could be called murder. If you shoot someone who is no longer attacking you but in incapacitated or walking away, that is considered a NEW fight, with you as the aggressor. It does not matter if they are in your house if this happens. Basic Morality dictates that revenge is left to the state.

 

[onfire]

Out of curiosity. If somebody entered your house and attacked you or your family....and you responded by shooting them in the chest...and they were completely incapacitated...would you put a bullet in that person's head to finish them off? Would you shoot them again in the heart? Would you delay calling 911 until that person died? There is a fine line between self defense and murder. Our constitution does not give us the right to murder.

Crisp

But it gives us the right to plead temporary insanity. That's a fine line too.

 

[dejapooh]

I'm switching sides again...now I am progun.

Criminals serve their time and do their punishment. When they are returned to society they should be afforded the same basic rights of the BoR. Do we stop allowing criminals free speech? Do we stop letting criminals from having any of the other amendments? Cherry picking the 2nd amendment from criminals is fundamentally flawed.

Crispin

Yes. We reduce the rights of those convicted of a crime. In many states, they are not allowed to vote. In many states those who are guilty of some crimes are force to NOT live in certain neighborhoods and so on. We stop convicted criminals from fully expressing their rights for the rest of their lives...

 

[G.I.B.]

Out of curiosity. If somebody entered your house and attacked you or your family....and you responded by shooting them in the chest...and they were completely incapacitated...would you put a bullet in that person's head to finish them off? Would you shoot them again in the heart? Would you delay calling 911 until that person died? There is a fine line between self defense and murder. Our constitution does not give us the right to murder.

If you double tap correctly this would not be an issue to start with. But lets say it's the below situation...

So you come home and some guy is raping your wife. You shoot him once. He's bleeding badly.

Your wife is quivering in the corner in a fetal position crying. You see signs of physical abuse.

Do you:

A: Comfort your wife, treat her non-life threatening wounds and hold her?
-or-
B. Ignore your wife and hold direct pressure on the bleeder?

 

[onfire]

If you double tap correctly this would not be an issue to start with. But lets say it's the below situation...

So you come home and some guy is raping your wife. You shoot him once. He's bleeding badly.

Your wife is quivering in the corner in a fetal position crying. You see signs of physical abuse.

Do you:

A: Comfort your wife, treat her non-life threatening wounds and hold her?
-or-
B. Ignore your wife and hold direct pressure on the bleeder?

If it's a nut shot I say let him be.

 

[Peyton Manning]

If you double tap correctly this would not be an issue to start with. But lets say it's the below situation...

So you come home and some guy is raping your wife. You shoot him once. He's bleeding badly.

Your wife is quivering in the corner in a fetal position crying. You see signs of physical abuse.

Do you:

A: Comfort your wife, treat her non-life threatening wounds and hold her?
-or-
B. Ignore your wife and hold direct pressure on the bleeder?

According to oSHA rules, I would take her out of the room for safety, then go look for a pair of latex gloves before touching a strangers blood, all the while hoping he pulled through if it took long to find some...

 

[dieselram94]

If you double tap correctly this would not be an issue to start with. But lets say it's the below situation...

So you come home and some guy is raping your wife. You shoot him once. He's bleeding badly.

Your wife is quivering in the corner in a fetal position crying. You see signs of physical abuse.

Do you:

A: Comfort your wife, treat her non-life threatening wounds and hold her?
-or-
B. Ignore your wife and hold direct pressure on the bleeder?

G.I.B. I hope everyone would choose "a". The only thing about the attacker I would be concerned with is him rotting in you know where. Anyone care to tell me I am wrong on this? I sincerely hope no one has gone through this or ever goes through this. Again, anyone care to tell me I am wrong? I CHALLENGE anyone......

 

[dieselram94]

"Life Liberty and Happiness" is Thomas Jefferson's propagandized version of "Life, Liberty, and Property" Written by John Loche. Jefferson was working with/for the rich in order for them to protect themselves from taxes that hit THEM rather than taxes that taxed the poor. Who used paper, which was taxed by the stamp tax? The rich read newspapers and books. The Rich signed contracts, and land agreements. The Tea Tax? The rich drank tea, the poor were forced to drink ale, beer, or heaven forbid... WATER (gross). The Tax revolt that was the American Revolution was a process of the rich duping the poor into fighting their war for them. The poor would have been better off with the British taxes on Luxury, rather than the Tariffs the US survived on, which taxed the Products the poor used in order to protect the Rich's industry.

Are you someone who believes in wealth transfer or what?