Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Old 31st May 2015, 10:48
  #2541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
out here in the wide open speeds below 120 are considered slow
Live in Germany do you? Or are you just routinely breaking the law?
Hempy is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 11:41
  #2542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Or are you just routinely breaking the law?
Wow, some one was toilet trained with a shotgun hey.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 12:02
  #2543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Not really. Just determining your 'type'.

p.s the 2nd is a Law. Can't be broken, don't you know...
Hempy is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 14:03
  #2544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Hempy is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 14:38
  #2545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where databases don't crash
Age: 43
Posts: 30
Hempy

The 2nd is not "a law". It is an amendment to the Constitution, a founding document. Furthermore, it is one of the first 10 amendments, known as "The Bill of Rights". Unlike you, who is a "subject" of the Crown and her government, the American people are in control and the government is told what it can and cannot do. The People have rights and they are not granted by anyone, they are inalienable.

The 2nd specifically outliners what the government is NOT allowed to do when it comes to arms.

So to make a daft statement like "It's lucky the 2nd didn't say something like 'You have the right to drive as fast as you want'." shows the writer's ignorance of the American system of government and its Constitution.

You see, the 2nd says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". That means the Government has NO right to prevent people from keeping and bearing arms. It does not give any rights to anyone. It is not a law. It specifies what rights people have, by the mere fact that they are people (inalienable rights), and that the Government is NOT ALLOWED to infringe on those rights.

Now some governments, like the one in District of Columbia, did pass a law that keeping and bearing arms is unlawful. So they passed a law contrary to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment. They attempted to infringe on the rights of the people. And guess what? The "people" took the Government to court, and when all was said and done the Supreme Court said "Yes, DC Government, you acted contrary to the Constitution and your law is invalid. You infringed on the rights of the people, and in these here United States of America, we do not allow things like this to go on, so scrap you silly law and let Mr. Heller have his guns."

Similar thing happened in Chicago (McDonald v. City of Chicago).

So if you are going to debate and argue the constitutional matters of the United States of America, in the very least, learn how things work here. Otherwise you just show your ignorance and that gives you no credibility.
WingSlinger is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 15:08
  #2546 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
p.s the 2nd is a Law. Can't be broken, don't you know...
I don't why I'm even bothering to reply to Hempy there is so much wrong in that post.




No I really don't.....


So never mind.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 15:35
  #2547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by WingSlinger View Post
You see, the 2nd says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". That means the Government has NO right to prevent people from keeping and bearing arms.
What about those convicted of domestic abuse as per the 68 Gun Act?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 16:09
  #2548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
Wingslinger,
Your supreme court disagrees:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courtís opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Heller vs DC
ExXB is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 18:08
  #2549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
con-pilot. I know 'subtle' doesn't mean much in your neck of the woods, but look 'facetious' up in the dictionary..
Hempy is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 18:19
  #2550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
Being a subject of The Crown and a speaker of a dialect of the Queen's English, don't you mean you're being fścetious?
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 18:33
  #2551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 306
As an outsider I see it as unfortunate that there is no limit to the number of scoundrels gnawing away at the edges of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

After an excellent landing etc...
Flash2001 is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 18:44
  #2552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Seldomfitforpurpose
What about those convicted of domestic abuse as per the 68 Gun Act?
This apparent conflict of laws you cite that restrict firearm possession in the face of the 2nd Amendment exists only in your own mind. This false notion of yours is the result of ignorance about both the U.S. system put forth in the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments that are written as limits placed on Government, during the course of which certain Rights are also enumerated. If you laid aside your obsession of the 2nd for 5 minutes and bothered to read all 10, paying particular attention to the 9th and 10th, it would become clear to you that is what they do. What's leading you off on this irrelevant tangent is not having the slightest idea what role and function the Supreme Court plays as laid-out in the Constitution. It is not only the court of last resort but is also empowered to define the limits of government by interpreting intent and rendering decisions when democratically arrived-at legislation is challenged on Constitutional grounds. If someone challenges the law and it is heard by the Supreme Court it can become a Constitutional test. This challenge is allowed-for by the Constitution and is therefore part of the process. The decisions made by the Court serve to define the boundaries of government power by interpreting what is or isn't protected.

These decision include those made pertaining to the one issue here you seem to be so terribly, terribly concerned about. But they've made decisions pertaining to other Amendments and the enumerated Rights found therein which also might confuse someone like yourself. For instance,

The 1st Amendment enumerates "Freedom of Speech" and explicitly prohibits Congress from passing any law that would abridge it, and yet there is no Constitutional conflict with laws that have been passed criminalizing some acts of vocalizing certain things. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a crime. Verbalizing a bomb threat will also likely land you in prison. The Supreme court ruled long ago that the 1st Amendment protection of Speech does not extend to speech that is dangerous or threatening.

The 1st Amendment also enumerates "Freedom of the Press", and yet Seal Team 6 doesn't have to embed journalists just because the New York Times or CNN would love to have one of theirs tagging along on every op. "Freedom of the Press" doesn't enumerate a Right that allows anyone calling themselves a reporter to go anywhere they want anytime they want. They don't get to hover over the President in the Oval Office. Press credentials likewise don't give them free access to private property. The following is from a legal guide for reporters:

Those who gather and disseminate information to the public do not have a privilege to trespass. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from laws of “general applicability” that don’t specifically target the press, including trespass laws.
Are you starting to get the picture, or are you still confused? The Supreme Court hears challenges, considers prior rulings, researches original intent when applicable, and makes decisions based on those things. Some of those decisions serve to define the limits of Constitutional protection for Rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments. I'll reiterate; the Supreme Court doing so is provided-for in the Constitution itself. They are the final authority until the Constitution is amended (the means by which this can be accomplished is also provided-for in the Constitution) or a different opinion by the Supreme Court is rendered. The Supreme Court, by reviewing previous rulings and researching original intent, define what those Freedoms include by deciding what is or isn't protected, and as a consequence also what would represent an abridgment, curtailment, or infringement upon the same.

I hope you notice that your interpretation of U.S. Constitutional Amendments isn't included anywhere in the process, and if you're oblivious as to what, how, and most importantly why the Supreme Court has decided the things they have then it's nobody's fault but your own you haven't studied the material. It's not Top Secret or anything just because you're a foreigner.

Last edited by PukinDog; 31st May 2015 at 19:36.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 18:58
  #2553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 617
PD, this has all been pointed out repeatedly to these ankle nippers, though few have done it as elegantly as you have.

As you can see from the continuous repetition of the same silly statements, they really are not interested in the answers so much as the opportunity to vent their feelings of irrelevancy.

I don't expect anything to change. Periodically a thread like this gets closed, but sure as God made little green apples and tapered turds, another one pops up with the same stuff.
obgraham is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 19:28
  #2554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 195
obgraham
...but sure as God made little green apples and tapered turds, another one pops up with the same stuff.
Man, I wish I'd written that! (so true and fitting)

Last edited by PukinDog; 31st May 2015 at 19:48.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 20:07
  #2555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Periodically a thread like this gets closed, but sure as God made little green apples and tapered turds, another one pops up with the same stuff.
Could that, perhaps, be because

(1) no matter who closes which threads, Americans still keep on and on and on killing each other with guns in vast numbers

and

(2) no matter who closes which threads, people from the civilised parts of the world keep on and on and on finding this bizarre and incomprehensible

?
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 21:16
  #2556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by PukinDog View Post
I hope you notice that your interpretation of U.S. Constitutional Amendments isn't included anywhere in the process, and if you're oblivious as to what, how, and most importantly why the Supreme Court has decided the things they have then it's nobody's fault but your own you haven't studied the material. It's not Top Secret or anything just because you're a foreigner.

So in essence when it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' what it actually means is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless we decide otherwise and currently there are 9 types of folk we don't anywhere near guns'........
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 22:16
  #2557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Seldomfitforpurpose
So in essence when it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' what it actually means is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless we decide otherwise and currently there are 9 types of folk we don't anywhere near guns'........
Read this again. Slowly. 100 times if you must until some sort of light begins to glow..

I'll reiterate; the Supreme Court doing so is provided-for in the Constitution itself. They are the final authority until the Constitution is amended (the means by which this can be accomplished is also provided-for in the Constitution) or a different opinion by the Supreme Court is rendered. The Supreme Court, by reviewing previous rulings and researching original intent, define what those Freedoms include by deciding what is or isn't protected, and as a consequence also what would represent an abridgment, curtailment, or infringement upon the same.
So no, there is no "in essence". A law that that doesn't encroach upon Constitutionally-protected Rights is not an infringement. If it were, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court when challenged. It's their Constitutional responsibility and part of their job to interpret and define such Constitutional things.. not the duly-elected lawmakers, or each individual citizen who sent them to Congress, and most certainly they are not decided by cluelessly thick spectators from far beyond our borders yapping their unlearned opinions worth less than a cat's puked-up hairball as to what is meant by "Freedom of Speech", "Freedom of the Press", the "Right to keep and bear arms","the Right to Peaceably Assemble" etc as found in the U.S. Bill of Rights, or what constitutes abridging, curtailing, or infringing upon any of them.

Hopefully, it's cleared up for you now. If there's any lingering doubt, trot yourself off to the U.S. and threaten to shoot the president. After you're arrested and imprisoned, take your case all the way to the Supreme Court, and with a copy of the Bill of Rights in hand declare that your "Freedom of Speech" has been abridged. Point right to that line that explicitly states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of Speech" and argue that under YOUR interpretation of the 1st Amendment you have the Right to say anything you want without it being a crime because, you know, it "says so right there". Please report back to everyone here how far your insight into and understanding of US Constitutional law got you.

Last edited by PukinDog; 31st May 2015 at 22:37.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 31st May 2015, 22:30
  #2558 (permalink)  

Official PPRuNe Chaplain
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 76
Posts: 3,502
Originally Posted by WingSlinger View Post
Unlike you, who is a "subject" of the Crown and her government...
Are you sure? Where does it say we're "subjects"?

I live in England, and my passport says I am a "British Citizen". In my filing cabinet I have my old passports going back some decades. The 1984 one says "British Citizen", too.

My grandfather's passport says "British Subject", but he's been dead for a while. Time to update your records?
Keef is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2015, 07:08
  #2559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by PukinDog View Post
So no, there is no "in essence". A law that that doesn't encroach upon Constitutionally-protected Rights is not an infringement.

And I refer you back to the 68 Gun Act and ask you if you think the Constitutionally protected Rights of those who convicted of beating their spouse has not been infringed?


If their right to bear arms has been denied to them since 68 along with the others in that list then how or why, with the will of the people supporting it is not a law to prevent the next Mrs Lanza not being bought onto the statute books?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2015, 15:36
  #2560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
If their right to bear arms has been denied to them since 68 along with the others in that list then how or why, with the will of the people supporting it is not a law to prevent the next Mrs Lanza not being bought onto the statute books?
First, you will need to justify your claim about the will of the people - you can't.

Second, you need to understand that a law basically designed to deal with one isolated event that inflicts itself on to the general population, to their inconvenience and removal of rights, is a bad law.

Third, laws in the US are passed by Congress. The "will of the people" alone may encourage a small number of politicians to propose a law but that is a very far cry, in terms of time and effect, from a law being passed through the two Houses and signed by the President. It may surprise you that Congress considers that it has more important things to do than dropping everything to consider a pointless idea from somebody who is not even a citizen.

I see that you are becoming involve in the anti-tobacco campaign in another thread. Most commendable. Please continue to fight the good cause in your own country which apparently has as many pro-smokers as the US has pro-gun supporters. It will be interesting to see how you succeed in the anti-tobacco campaign, since the use of tobacco is not a right you should be able to roll up the opposition in very short order. Perhaps, when you have won the anti-smoking battle you can return to spend more time with us in this thread.

.
BOING is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.