The case against guns

[Blind groper]

The wording of the second amendment is terribly ambiguous. What are 'arms'? They could be almost anything. At one time, a sword or a dagger were 'arms'. If the USA adopted the British rule that permitted people to carry a knife with a blade less than 4 inches long, that would also be 'bearing arms.'

Banning a specific weapon, but permitting others is not against the second amendment as it is written.

[Seth]

I am not 12. But I live in a largely non corrupt country. I feel sorry for you poor dweebs whose politicians are for sale to the highest bidder. No wonder your country is such a mess.

Don't worry, yours are for sale too, they're just more careful not to get caught.

Hey, how about them Maori?

Transparency International uses a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) to compare levels of economic crime in different countries and has consistently ranked New Zealand as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. However the rankings are primarily based on opinion surveys rather than empirical evidence – and Transparency acknowledges that corruption is "to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure".[3] Notwithstanding the subjectivity of its corruption scale, it has ranked New Zealand as one of the least corrupt out of 183 countries since 2003.[4]

However, New Zealand's political history involves the subjugation of Maori – in a process which today would be described as 'grand corruption'. In recent years the New Zealand Police have increasingly engaged in 'noble cause corruption' – where they break the law to achieve a conviction; and agencies like the Serious Fraud Office working at the financial coalface point out that fraud is widespread in New Zealand. Source: Wikipedia

[Seth]

Voting for gun control and against the 2nd Amendment is treason.

First of all, no it isn't.

Yes, it is, because by voting to disarm the people by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms they are giving aid and comfort to our enemies by weakening our ability to stave off an invasion. That's the very essence of treason, every bit as much, if not more so, than citizen saboteurs blowing up an ammunition depot.

Second of all, do you see the constitution as an ossified holy relic or a 'living' constitution that may be changed (or ammended) to keep it relevant to the issues of the times?

The Constitution cannot be amended to amend away my civil rights, in particular the right to freedom of speech, religion, the press and the right to ikeep and bear arms. Those rights are not subject to popular vote. Period. And I will defend those rights with whatever force is necessary to preserve them, as I swore in my oath as a police officer oh so many years ago.

Attempts to vote away our fundamental rights are treasonous and are a clear indicator of tyranny.

[Seth]

Voting for gun control is not "treason" -- (a) not all gun control is violative of the Second Amendment - so voting for gun control that is consistent with the Second Amendment is not treason, and (b) voting is voting -- it's not treason. Voting to make abortion mandatory or to shut down all the news papers is not "treason".

What if the government wants to restrict 1st Amendment rights? Well, violating the First Amendment would be unconstitutional, but not all unconstitutional acts are "treason." Just like when a cop does an unreasonable search or seizure, it may cause evidence not to be admitted or a conviction to be overturned, but the cop isn't brought up on treason charges.

Treason is punishable by death. You think that if a cop is found to have failed to get a warrant when one was required that he should be executed? You think if a city is found to have unconstitutionally taken property in eminent domain that that the city council and the mayor should be hanged? Do you think that if a judge imposes an excessive bail, he's committed treason and should be executed?

Dude - think it through.

Wrong. Voting to allow abortion does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, neither, arguably, does regulation of free speech, but any regulation that infringes on the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms, and by "arms" I specifically include all weapons that are particularly suitable for, or are used by the individual soldier in the field, including machine guns, is treasonous because in disarming the public those who seek to do so are giving aid and comfort to our enemies every bit as much as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were traitors for their participation "in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb."[7] Source: Wikipedia.

And the same fate should befall those who attempt to disarm the citizenry as befell the Rosenbergs, for they are enemies of the nation who seek it's destruction.

[Seth]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

The also had regulations concerning where and when firearms could be carried back then too. Many towns barred the bearing of arms within their city limits.

And those laws were, and are, unconstitutional.

It also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear ANY ARM OF ANY KIND ANYWHERE ANYTIME shall not be infringed," does it? Just like freedom of speech does not include conspiracies to commit murder and defamation of character or libel/slander, there are outer limits.

Actually, I argue the proper inference is that one CAN keep and bear any sort of arms, anywhere, at any time. The Amendment is unambiguous in that regard. "Shall not be infringed" is a positive command ("shall not" is a mandatory legal phrase) not to "encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another."

Do you support the right of felons and psychotics to bear arms?

If a person is deemed to psychotic to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, then by definition that person is an imminent danger to himself or others, and must therefore be institutionalized and kept away from the public in a secure place where he can receive proper treatment. During that period of treatment, while the individual is insane, his right to keep and bear arms may be suspended consistent with due process.

In the case of felons, once they have completed their sentence, their rights must be restored automatically because they have, for all legal intents and purposes paid their debt to society and must be restored to full citizenship. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to make the RKBA conditional in perpetuity. We know that the Founders acknowledged the need to disarm inmates, but there is nothing in their writings suggesting that a permanent revocation of any civil right is permissible once punishment has been completed.

There are many, many "felons" who are not currently allowed to keep and bear arms, not even for self-defense, who committed felonies that have nothing to do with violence or some manifest intent to harm others, from taxpayers who tried to dodge taxes to Wall Street moguls who defrauded people. None of them pose an imminent threat that would justify divesting them of their civil rights for life. If the crime is heinous enough to justify that, then their sentence should and must be a life sentence.

There are literally millions of low-level "felony" offenders who will never be able to exercise their RKBA and are therefore at risk of being victimized who did nothing more serious than smoke a single joint. Texas prisons are full of them.

In other words, there is no legal justification for imposing a "prior restraint" on an EX-felon's future exercise of his constitutional rights beyond his sentence and parole period. When he's paid his debt, it's fully paid.

The solution to repeat offenders is to make sure that their third strike takes them out...permanently. And, of course, the objective is for law-abiding citizens to be ubiquitously armed so that they can exercise THEIR right to armed self defense, which helps in avoiding excessive recidivism and costly appeals.

[Seth]

'Home defences'.

America at its best.

I'm sure laughing is what you'll be doing when a crew of home invaders are breaking in to your house.

If you're so proud, then you should put a sign in your front yard that says, "This house contains no guns."

Hey, where he comes from that is a given, which is why the "hot burglary" stats are so outrageous in the UK.
If you gave him a gun and the legal authority to use it he wouldn't know what to do because he's a well-trained dependent class Socialist who puts absolute trust in the ability of his comrades to protect him against Very Bad Things.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

About the Maori people in NZ.

There is a 100% record of colonising nations treating indigenous people badly.

However, Britain, and the local NZ government that followed, have a better record than any other colonising nation. Which is, of course, the reason our lapses with Maori have not dropped us from no. 1 position as least corrupt nation.

NZ is utterly unique in that colonisation began with a treaty with the local native people. Shamefully, that treaty was broken by the British authorities within 50 years, in order to grab land off the Maori. However, our current government has, for the past 4 decades been involved in a process of restitution and compensation with Maori tribe for those past wrongs.

NZ has a record less than 100% clean, but still better than any other nation that began as a colony.

[Seth]

The wording of the second amendment is terribly ambiguous. What are 'arms'? They could be almost anything. At one time, a sword or a dagger were 'arms'. If the USA adopted the British rule that permitted people to carry a knife with a blade less than 4 inches long, that would also be 'bearing arms.'

Banning a specific weapon, but permitting others is not against the second amendment as it is written.

Yes, "arms" is a deliberately broad term and it does happen to include swords, daggers, knives, bludgeons and anything else a person might lawfully use as a weapon of self-defense, including a table lamp or a Rottweiler.

And yes, banning one "arm" is infringing on the right to keep and bear that arm (weapon) so it does violate the 2nd Amendment.

You hoplophobes love to try to parse simple phrases to try to weasel out of the truth.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could not be more clear and unambiguous.

The point where your logic, and even Coito's fails is in distinguishing "keeping and bearing" from "using, operating or discharging."

Those are two entirely different things. The 2nd Amendment does not say that Congress "shall not infringe" the time, place and manner of the OPERATION or USE of arms for their legal, legitimate purposes. Thus, one can carry a rapier or a saber hither and yon at will, but one may be restrained by law from USING it in a duel (although dueling was lawful at the time, just ask Aaron Burr), or from DISCHARGING in a crowded public place where others would be endangered (thus infringing on THEIR superior right to life).

To be sensible about the 2nd Amendment it is imperative that you understand the distinction above. One is regulable, the other is not, except as a consequence of individual criminal misconduct, in which case one's RKBA and one's right to life, liberty and property may be FORFEITED by the defendant, for a period of time or even for life as the judicial system requires.

But absent some misconduct with the weapon, an individual may, under the obvious and facial reading of the Amendment, keep and bear (own and carry) absolutely any type or number of arms that suit him. He just can't USE them unlawfully.

Someday perhaps you'll integrate the distinction and might be able to make an honest and rational argument based in fact.

[Seth]

To Seth

About the Maori people in NZ.

There is a 100% record of colonising nations treating indigenous people badly.

Yup. And Britain is the worst of all.

However, Britain, and the local NZ government that followed, have a better record than any other colonising nation. Which is, of course, the reason our lapses with Maori have not dropped us from no. 1 position as least corrupt nation.

Say what? Britain had a worldwide empire of subjugated peoples. It was the worst offender in all of history in that regard. And it's just your opinion that NZ's treatment of the Maori doesn't impeach your sanctimonious horseshit.

NZ is utterly unique in that colonisation began with a treaty with the local native people. Shamefully, that treaty was broken by the British authorities within 50 years, in order to grab land off the Maori. However, our current government has, for the past 4 decades been involved in a process of restitution and compensation with Maori tribe for those past wrongs.

So, when are they deporting you from New Zealand? And who would take you?

The point being that even "least corrupt" cannot be read to mean "uncorrupted." It's a relative term. Was Italy under Il Duce "less corrupt" than Germany under Hitler? Who knows, they were both evil regimes. But at least Il Duce made the trains run on time...

NZ has a record less than 100% clean, but still better than any other nation that began as a colony.

I'm not sure the Maori agree with you. But you miss the point...again.

[JimC]

CES wrote:

Do you support the right of felons and psychotics to bear arms?

If Collector supports the NRA, then certainly one part of the question is answered...






"If Collector supports the NRA"

Jim, that is a dumb thing you just typed...

"If water flows downhill"
"If the pope is a catholic"
"If Faithfree enjoys a glass of wine at night"
"If Pappa has a good-looking missus"
"If Kristie can cook cakes"

[Collector1337]

'Home defences'.

America at its best.

I'm sure laughing is what you'll be doing when a crew of home invaders are breaking in to your house.

If you're so proud, then you should put a sign in your front yard that says, "This house contains no guns."

How much would you like to best that won't ever happen here in more or less gun free England? I bet you your gun stash versus my social arrangements whereby we hardly ever..well actually never.. see, let alone hear gunfire or have to fear the nightmare you must live with most of the time.

INVADERS! ARGGGHHH!

You think I hear gun fire randomly?

[Blind groper]

Yes, "arms" is a deliberately broad term and it does happen to include swords, daggers, knives, bludgeons and anything else a person might lawfully use as a weapon of self-defense, including a table lamp or a Rottweiler.

Which means, taking the second amendment literally, that the American government could ban any specific weapons or classes of weapons and still leave the right to bear arms, even if those arms are restricted to a knife of blade length less than 4 inches.

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

[Collector1337]

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

Scared pussies who need to be taken care of perhaps. Weaklings.

[MrJonno]

Hey, where he comes from that is a given, which is why the "hot burglary" stats are so outrageous in the UK.

Got a non NRA source for that, you of course won't have as hot burglary isnt a separate crime and has never been recorded as such.

I assume the only way you could even make a guess at in the US is when you find bodies after the crime

[Seth]

Yes, "arms" is a deliberately broad term and it does happen to include swords, daggers, knives, bludgeons and anything else a person might lawfully use as a weapon of self-defense, including a table lamp or a Rottweiler.

Which means, taking the second amendment literally, that the American government could ban any specific weapons or classes of weapons and still leave the right to bear arms, even if those arms are restricted to a knife of blade length less than 4 inches.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you. It doesn't say that the government may ban some arms and not others, it says that my right to keep and bear ANY arms "shall not be infringed." Period.

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

Yeah, well, that'll do for me. Doesn't matter a whit whether you agree or disagree, it's my country not yours, so your opinion of our laws is irrelevant.