NALMBHGCLMAETGB

[sanmo]

The thread was only quarantined when the conversation went to personal instead of topical...

What happened? Did someone lose control over their emotions? 

[Rhino]

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

[sanmo]

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.

[Rhino]

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.

[Rhino]

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?

[maxtog]

What happened?

I think you know.  And if not, explaining it again probably won't help.

Did someone lose control over their emotions? 

Not at all, but someone did call someone else out about such personal/emotional remarks rather than focusing on the topic.

[maxtog]

See lots more here: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

That is a good collection

[sanmo]

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.

[maxtog]

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.

[gPink]

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....

[Rhino]

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.

[sanmo]

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.

[sanmo]

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.

[sanmo]

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?

[sanmo]

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?

[Rhino]

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

[Rhino]

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.

[Conniesaki]

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?

[gPink]

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'?

[jettawreck]

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.