Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: sanmo on April 30, 2018, 05:22:45 PM
-
I'm guessing that some of the inmates will not find this amusing.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/take-it-from-mike-royko-machineguns-dont-kill/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
:popcorn:
-
I'm guessing that some of the inmates will not find this amusing.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/take-it-from-mike-royko-machineguns-dont-kill/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
:popcorn:
I guess now I'm not just a deplorable, I'm must also be an inmate ... I don't find it amusing. ::)
-
I guess now I'm not just a deplorable, I'm must also be an inmate ... I don't find it amusing. ::)
The insulting lead in to this is why I declined to follow sanmo's link. He's acting like a troll now. Sorry sanmo but you should venture into the Arena and we can have an honest discussion.
-
"They say it is their constitutional right to bear arms. (Actually, it isn’t. They always leave off the part that says the right to bear arms is so this country will have a strong “militia”). But if somebody can claim it is his constitutional right to keep a .38 in his dresser drawer, I don’t see why we can’t buy machineguns. After all, anything a pistol can do, a machinegun can do better."
I actually agree with all of this except the "Actually, it isn't" part. All you have to do is read a little of what the authors of the constitution have to say about what a militia is to understand why they made this "the right of the people". That exact phrase is also used in the 1st and 4th amendments. So yes it is my constitutional right to have a .38 or a Block 21 and better still a full auto AR. Making them illegal is certainly an infringement.
-
I guess now I'm not just a deplorable, I'm must also be an inmate ... I don't find it amusing. ::)
Joe, if it's any consolation we are all inmates in this loony bin. Cannot comment on your deplorability. :)
-
"They say it is their constitutional right to bear arms. (Actually, it isn’t. They always leave off the part that says the right to bear arms is so this country will have a strong “militia”). But if somebody can claim it is his constitutional right to keep a .38 in his dresser drawer, I don’t see why we can’t buy machineguns. After all, anything a pistol can do, a machinegun can do better."
I actually agree with all of this except the "Actually, it isn't" part. All you have to do is read a little of what the authors of the constitution have to say about what a militia is to understand why they made this "the right of the people". That exact phrase is also used in the 1st and 4th amendments. So yes it is my constitutional right to have a .38 or a Block 21 and better still a full auto AR. Making them illegal is certainly an infringement.
That Royko article was written more than 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken it was only after the 2008 Heller decision with Justice Scalia at the helm did the Supremes rule that the militia aspect was not relevant and that all citizens had the right to bear arms.
-
No, that's what the authors of the CotUS determined when they wrote the 2nd.
That Royko article was written more than 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken it was only after the 2008 Heller decision with Justice Scalia at the helm did the Supremes rule that the militia aspect was not relevant and that all citizens had the right to bear arms.
-
Joe, if it's any consolation we are all inmates in this loony bin. Cannot comment on your deplorability. :)
If being pro 2nd amendment, pro constitution and pro America makes me a deplorable, (in at least Hillary's eyes) then I can assure you,
I am deplorable! 8)
-
Fact of the matter is, the constitution does not grant us any rights. The right to speak my mind, the right to privacy, the right to defend myself with arms, among others, are inalienable rights and the Bill of Rights is a prohibition to the government not to violate those rights. Which is why the often overlooked 9th amendment may in fact be the most important one IMO.
-
We are the militia. Not the army. The 2nd is meant for the people to be armed in defense of a tyrannical government. Read what the Framers meant when they write the BoR.
-
Which is why the often overlooked 9th amendment may in fact be the most important one IMO.
:goodpost: :thumbs:
-
That Royko article was written more than 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken it was only after the 2008 Heller decision with Justice Scalia at the helm did the Supremes rule that the militia aspect was not relevant and that all citizens had the right to bear arms.
You are correct that the Heller case was the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue, but it was always a canard: the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights are all about protecting the individual rights of the people, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment says the "right of the people . . . shall not be infringed" and nowhere else in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do we interpret "the people" to mean "state militia or national guard". For full analysis, the Heller opinion is a better resource than me (I'm past the point of getting pulled into long internet debates).
-
Fact of the matter is, the constitution does not grant us any rights. The right to speak my mind, the right to privacy, the right to defend myself with arms, among others, are inalienable rights and the Bill of Rights is a prohibition to the government not to violate those rights. Which is why the often overlooked 9th amendment may in fact be the most important one IMO.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of more rights than fewer rights. But these inalienable rights that you claim, are absolute rights or conditional rights?
-
We are the militia. Not the army.
Agreed, but what makes us a well-regulated militia?
Read what the Framers meant when they write the BoR.
I'd really like to read the Framer's explanation of the Bill of Rights. All I can find is various interpretations and opinions of "experts" and the courts.
-
.....(I'm past the point of getting pulled into long internet debates).
This thread was started as an appreciation of Royko's timeless sardonic humor, not to revive the quarantined "gun control" thread. At least we have broadened the discussion to Constitutional matters, with or without enthusiastic participation in long internet debates.
-
You are correct that the Heller case was the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue, but it was always a canard: the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights are all about protecting the individual rights of the people, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment says the "right of the people . . . shall not be infringed" and nowhere else in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do we interpret "the people" to mean "state militia or national guard".
100% correct. The rights were always there, and they were clearly for "the people." The Supreme Court just never decided to hear and rule on any meaningful argument about the 2nd until Heller. We didn't suddenly just gain an individual right to arms in 2008, we technically gained all our rights BEFORE the Constitution was born- actually at the Declaration of Independence in 1776. But the Constitution and Bill of Rights made it very clear, as an instrument to enumerate what the government must, but mostly cannot do.
-
Agreed, but what makes us a well-regulated militia?
It doesn't matter. The force and operational statement of the 2nd couldn't be more clear and direct:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
-
This thread was started as an appreciation of Royko's timeless sardonic humor, not to revive the quarantined "gun control" thread.
The thread was only quarantined when the conversation went to personal instead of topical...
-
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of more rights than fewer rights. But these inalienable rights that you claim, are absolute rights or conditional rights?
Conditional. And the condition is that you can only exercise them without violating someone else's rights.
-
It doesn't matter. The force and operational statement of the 2nd couldn't be more clear and direct:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
That is a very selective acceptance of the parts of 2A that are convenient to you. What if the right to bear arms is given only for the purpose of forming well regulated militias for the security of the state?
-
The thread was only quarantined when the conversation went to personal instead of topical...
What happened? Did someone lose control over their emotions? ;D
-
I'd really like to read the Framer's explanation of the Bill of Rights. All I can find is various interpretations and opinions of "experts" and the courts.
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
See lots more here: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers)
-
Conditional. And the condition is that you can only exercise them without violating someone else's rights.
Exactly. In a civilized society we have to accept certain conditions or limitations on our "inalienable rights" to make it work. That was the point of Royko's column about things that go boom, or rat-tat-tat-tat.... for that matter.
-
That is a very selective acceptance of the parts of 2A that are convenient to you. What if the right to bear arms is given only for the purpose of forming well regulated militias for the security of the state?
Assuming you are referring to the National Guard. In its current organization is not a militia, it is an extension of the army. In fact it is the exact opposite of a militia in that it would be called up to resist a militia.
-
Exactly. In a civilized society we have to accept certain conditions or limitations on our "inalienable rights" to make it work. That was the point of Royko's column about things that go boom, or rat-tat-tat-tat.... for that matter.
How does my ownership of a few guns violate your rights?
-
What happened?
I think you know. And if not, explaining it again probably won't help.
Did someone lose control over their emotions? ;D
Not at all, but someone did call someone else out about such personal/emotional remarks rather than focusing on the topic.
-
See lots more here: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers)
That is a good collection
-
How does my ownership of a few guns violate your rights?
I have no problems with your ownership of a few guns so long as they do not result in death or injury to innocent people because you were careless in securing the weapons. I would expect that you as a law abiding gun owner would be in favor of regulations designed to prevent mass shootings.
-
I have no problems with your ownership of a few guns so long as they do not result in death or injury to innocent people because you were careless in securing the weapons. I would expect that you as a law abiding gun owner would be in favor of regulations designed to prevent mass shootings.
And there lies the problem. You generally cannot have gun control regulations that are designed to prevent mass shootings that don't also infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. And, usually, it is worse because the gun controls don't affect the criminals at all and greatly negatively affect the law-abiding gun owners. Further, such measures usually don't do anything real to curb or stop mass shootings, they are just "feel good" measures because we have to "do something."
Gun-free zones is probably the most perfect example there is. All law-abiding gun owners are 100% stripped of their gun rights the moment they step into such an area. Criminals totally ignore the law, like they always do. And the result is a zone that is actually far more unsafe than without the regulation at all.
-
The facts that sanmo and his ilk refuse to recognize and understand is the horse already left the barn a long time past. The next shooter is already out there....the next weapon is already out there and even full confiscation laws will not prevent it. So on it goes....
-
I have no problems with your ownership of a few guns so long as they do not result in death or injury to innocent people because you were careless in securing the weapons. I would expect that you as a law abiding gun owner would be in favor of regulations designed to prevent mass shootings.
I am violently in favor of laws against use of guns that result in "death or injury to innocent people". I am also in favor of laws against the use of automobiles that result in the death or injury of innocent people. I am a big believer that you are responsible for how you use any tool such that it does not endanger innocent people. But if someone breaks into my home and steals one of my guns and uses it criminally I consider that the exact same as if someone breaks into your car and uses it criminally. The criminal that stole it is the one responsible.
-
Assuming you are referring to the National Guard.......
Not really. I'm referring to whatever well regulated militia the framers of 2A had in mind.
-
I think you know. And if not, explaining it again probably won't help.
Not at all, but someone did call someone else out about such personal/emotional remarks rather than focusing on the topic.
I really don't know what happened. I recall making a critical but fair post and the next time I looked in, the thread had been consigned to Valhalla or wherever. Perhaps there were some inflammatory posts subsequent to mine. Anyway, water under the bridge. Round of applause for the mods for the good balance between spirited debate and forum decorum. :thumbs:
-
I am violently in favor of laws against use of guns that result in "death or injury to innocent people". I am also in favor of laws against the use of automobiles that result in the death or injury of innocent people. I am a big believer that you are responsible for how you use any tool such that it does not endanger innocent people. But if someone breaks into my home and steals one of my guns and uses it criminally I consider that the exact same as if someone breaks into your car and uses it criminally. The criminal that stole it is the one responsible.
It is unlikely that you will be held criminally liable for unauthorized criminal use of your property. But there is the matter of culpability. If the thief was able to get to your guns because you did not use a gun safe or other safeguards or was able to use my car in a criminal manner because I left the car unlocked and the key in the ignition, then we have a moral culpability to the crime. Perhaps you do not find such societal responsibility to be a reasonable expectation?
-
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: To fight government tyranny.
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable. :)
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
-
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: To fight prevent government tyranny and personal protection and I am also a proud deplorable
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable. :)
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
FIFY
-
It is unlikely that you will be held criminally liable for unauthorized criminal use of your property. But there is the matter of culpability. If the thief was able to get to your guns because you did not use a gun safe or other safeguards or was able to use my car in a criminal manner because I left the car unlocked and the key in the ignition, then we have a moral culpability to the crime. Perhaps you do not find such societal responsibility to be a reasonable expectation?
Putting the gun in a safe renders the gun unusable for personal protection. Yes most of my guns are in a safe but a few are ready for personal protection. If we follow the same analogy with someone stealing your car for criminal use, it would be like to be responsible car owner, removing the wheels so no one could steal it.
-
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: To fight government tyranny.
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable. :)
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
Conniesaki: Hunting (food), target practice (hobby), to fight government tyranny (remember checks & balances?) and for personal protection
... and I don't even carry, but I appreciate having the option of being able to should I ever decide.
I suppose some or all of these reasons make me deplorable to anti-gun folks, but I'm perfectly fine with that.
Now remind me, what are the primary reasons you're against gun rights?
-
NALMBHGCLMAETGB
« on: April 30, 2018, 06:22:45 pm »
ReplyQuote
I'm guessing that some of the inmates will not find this amusing.
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: To fight government tyranny.
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable. :)
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
The insulting lead in to this is why I declined to follow sanmo's link. He's acting like a troll now. Sorry sanmo but you should venture into the Arena and we can have an honest discussion.
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Are you still 'befuddled'?
-
It is unlikely that you will be held criminally liable for unauthorized criminal use of your property. But there is the matter of culpability. If the thief was able to get to your guns because you did not use a gun safe or other safeguards or was able to use my car in a criminal manner because I left the car unlocked and the key in the ignition, then we have a moral culpability to the crime. Perhaps you do not find such societal responsibility to be a reasonable expectation?
None of my guns are locked in a safe or have (or will have) trigger locks. If someone breaks into and enters my house and steals one to use in a crime has no comparison to leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
I have no expectations of any good outcome(s) when a crime is first committed.
-
None of my guns are locked in a safe or have (or will have) trigger locks. If someone breaks into and enters my house and steals one to use in a crime has no comparison to leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
All of mine are locked in a quick-access wall safe except the one I am carrying and/or the one that is well hidden but very ready. My only liability concern would be if an INVITED GUEST, specifically a child, were to able to get ahold of the hidden one. But I would not have it there if there were such a guest. And that is not something I would ever forget or not take care of. Safety first!
If someone were to break into my house and somehow steal one of my firearms, that should be a zero liability situation, regardless of how they were or were not secured. And, of course, if that happened, I would immediately inform the police and provide the make/model/SN of whatever was taken.
-
The insulting lead in to this is why I declined to follow sanmo's link. He's acting like a troll now. Sorry sanmo but you should venture into the Arena and we can have an honest discussion.
Honesty is so importan!
Just ask our POTUS about the importance of honesty. :o
-
Honesty is so importan!
Just ask our POTUS about the importance of honesty. :o
Wrong thread.
-
Just a quick question, since we are accusing other's of being a troll, hopefully I can ask this question here without causing the thread to get locked. I am actually asking for information (not trolling) from the many sides that seem to be here. Regardless of your political bent/opinion in general, i.e. left, right, middle, bottom, guns, no guns, some guns, etc.....
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
I would really like to know what you actually think at your gut level about that person (Again me, if that helps) and not what logical answer you think will stand up to internet scrutiny.
So, A? or A&B? If you're not willing to answer here, I'm appreciatively taking (confidential PMs*) on this question. Thanks.
* I'll keep it confidential, but on many forums, PMs are visible to moderators. I'm OK with that, however you may not be.
-
Marty, to answer your question, I would say "B".
It's quite possible that someone could "not care for the current Potus" but would still not have wanted the other options as Potus.
But if someone was to post the example you gave, I would think they "really wanted Hillary or Bernie as" their Potus.
-
FIFY
Thanks for the gratuitous FIFY. I'm fully aware that most gun owners have multiple motives for gun rights. The list was about the primary motivation for gun rights (singular, if not obvious) as inferred from forum postings.
-
Putting the gun in a safe renders the gun unusable for personal protection. Yes most of my guns are in a safe but a few are ready for personal protection. If we follow the same analogy with someone stealing your car for criminal use, it would be like to be responsible car owner, removing the wheels so no one could steal it.
Of course you want the guns handy if the threat of home invasion is substantial. Curious about what you do with those few guns when nobody's home.
There are a variety of high-tech and low-tech options available to deter theft of your car. No need to remove the wheels. Worst case scenario carry a pair of Denver boots in your trunk. :)
-
....I suppose some or all of these reasons make me deplorable to anti-gun folks, but I'm perfectly fine with that.
Sorry, to my knowledge TurboJoe78 was the first to plant the Deplorable Flag. Anyone else claiming that status, is just uninspired copying. ;D
Now remind me, what are the primary reasons you're against gun rights?
Not against gun rights, so neither primary nor secondary reasons available to remind you.
-
None of my guns are locked in a safe or have (or will have) trigger locks. If someone breaks into and enters my house and steals one to use in a crime has no comparison to leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
I have no expectations of any good outcome(s) when a crime is first committed.
I wonder if that cavalier attitude towards gun security is the reason why we have "illegal guns in the hands of bad guys". That and maybe some rogue cops? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/02/us/gun-dealing-dc-cop-sentenced/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Just a quick question, since we are accusing other's of being a troll, hopefully I can ask this question here without causing the thread to get locked. I am actually asking for information (not trolling) from the many sides that seem to be here.......
Señor Marty, your poll is worthy of its own thread and I see that one of our illustrious members has already moved in that direction. As far as I know there is only one member here who readily uses the troll accusation either due to a genuine intolerance of contrary opinions, or to mask serious inadequacies in debating skills or he/she is just smarting from previous forum skirmishes. To quote our fearless leader, SAD!
-
* I'll keep it confidential, but on many forums, PMs are visible to moderators. I'm OK with that, however you may not be.
I can't see them, Marty and nor do I want to unless someone brings something to my attention and copies and sends it to me. There may be a way to do that on this forum but I'm not aware of it.
-
Marty, to answer your question, I would say "B".
turbojoe', Thank you for your candor. :thumbs:
Señor Marty, your poll is worthy of its own thread and I see that one of our illustrious members has already moved in that direction.
OK, sorry for posting on your thread, yeah I should have used a Poll instead of a post.
Please continue on with the hilarity of this NALMBHGCLMAETGB thread.
When I lived in Chicago (and I say this honestly and not because I have any pro or con feelings about the subject matter in the column originally referenced) I always thought that Mike Royko was an obnoxious drunken asshat, and he was only tolerated because he could turn a phrase. If he had quit writing his daily spiel, I doubt there were more than a handful, in a city of millions, that could put up with him as a neighbor. Half of those handful, only because Mike was frequently buying.
I can't see them, Marty and nor do I want to unless someone brings something to my attention and copies and sends it to me. There may be a way to do that on this forum but I'm not aware of it.
OK, I didn't know about here, but I thought I should mention it just in case. I know that on other forums the moderators can see 'em.
-
Just a quick question, since we are accusing other's of being a troll, hopefully I can ask this question here without causing the thread to get locked. I am actually asking for information (not trolling) from the many sides that seem to be here. Regardless of your political bent/opinion in general, i.e. left, right, middle, bottom, guns, no guns, some guns, etc.....
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
I would really like to know what you actually think at your gut level about that person (Again me, if that helps) and not what logical answer you think will stand up to internet scrutiny.
So, A? or A&B? If you're not willing to answer here, I'm appreciatively taking (confidential PMs*) on this question. Thanks.
* I'll keep it confidential, but on many forums, PMs are visible to moderators. I'm OK with that, however you may not be.
This might be interesting...
When someone (say me (me too), for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
(I just wanted to read the above again) ::) :-X
My answer would be A.
Just a guess on my part but I'd bet money that supporters of the current administration would all vote B (as I've seen this time and time again in the Arena).
-
When I lived in Chicago (and I say this honestly and not because I have any pro or con feelings about the subject matter in the column originally referenced) I always thought that Mike Royko was an obnoxious drunken asshat, and he was only tolerated because he could turn a phrase. If he had quit writing his daily spiel, I doubt there were more than a handful, in a city of millions, that could put up with him as a neighbor. Half of those handful, only because Mike was frequently buying.
lol. Good to know.
Pretty sure I too have been considered an obnoxious asshat on occasion in this forum and elsewhere. That matters very little to me, unless by someone that I really care about or respect. With everybody else it's "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". ;D
-
Pretty sure I too have been considered an obnoxious asshat on occasion in this forum and elsewhere.
Well not by me, so far, but to be honest I haven't hung my days thoughts on every word you've typed.
Still, I'd like to know your answer to my earlier question. A? or A&B.
-
Well not by me, so far, but to be honest I haven't hung my days thoughts on every word you've typed.
Oh good. Then you remain in the dark about the terrible things being said about you.
Still, I'd like to know your answer to my earlier question. A? or A&B.
Yes.
-
Oh good. Then you remain in the dark about the terrible things being said about you.
Oh I hear it all (unless it's in the arena), I just don't dwell on it.
Yes.
Gee thanks, you've been a big help. :battle: