PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 22:37


So the 2nd Ammendment could be ammended?
Absolutely. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. In fact, it could be completely removed.

How To Amend the Constitution

galaxy flyer 25th Oct 2014 22:45

And, without much effort, I can name 13 states that would block any such amendment. Heck, every state south of the Mason-Dixon and all the states west of the Mississippi and short of the Sierra Nevada would oppose in a state legislature vote. Not to worry, SFFP, it ain't happenin'

GF

Fliegenmong 25th Oct 2014 22:45

That could be a valid point I guess, if President George H.W. Bush would have finished off Saddam the first time, there would have been no second need to go back to Iraq. I mean the road was wide open, nothing or no one could have stopped us.

Those black flagged bearded murderers would likely have filled the void far earlier if SH was removed the first time round.....

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 22:51


Originally Posted by con-pilot
Okay, now that you are suddenly a Constitutional expert and seem to think that you know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court of the United States of America, please justify your statement.

I never made such a claim and hence your argument is a strawman.

galaxy flyer 25th Oct 2014 22:58

John Hill,

Come back after you read the Heller and McDonald decisions which provide all you need to know about how the SCOTUS feels about "militia" and "well regulated". In brief, that's a prefatory clause which does not limit the fundamental right. A right that existed well before 1783 in UK common law. The idea that government can disarm lawful citizens is a new idea brought on by control freaks espousing leftie ideas. Recognize them in the mirror, John?

BTW, you made the straw an argument about those decisions, justify it. Why did the Court amend the 2nd?

GF

Fliegenmong 25th Oct 2014 23:08

Anyone got a link to the original video anyway? Seems to have disappeared

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 23:11

I can see why gun fondling fundamentalists get along so well with other fundamentalists, they are so alike.

The principle is easy enough.

Take some chapter of divine writ ( Torah, Koran, Bible, US Constitution) and seize on a tiny verse or phrase and use that as the basis of an entire religious movement. Argue that words mean something special in this instance to suit whatever it is that you are wanting to become 'law'. Continue the argument and hopefully somewhere along the way some pope, bishop, rabbi, scholar, lawyer or judge will see it your way then you add their 'ruling' to your argument. Wash, rinse and repeat.

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th Oct 2014 23:28


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8713994)
Not to worry, SFFP, it ain't happenin'

GF

But it could happen :p

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 23:46


I never made such a claim and hence your argument is a strawman.
So you didn't post this.


Seldomfitforpurpose, technically no, practically yes. IMHO.
IMHO, which stand for In My Humble Opinion. Yes?

So back your opinion, your humble opinion, that the Supreme Court in 'practicality' changed the intent or original reasoning and/or wording of the Second Amendment.

You disagree with the recent Court’s option regarding the Second Amendment, yes or no? If yes, what make you believe that you have more knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the Supreme Court?

As for a Strawman's argument, I suggest you look into the mirror.

I don't hold out much hope, as you still don't know "who started the Korean War." :p

pigboat 25th Oct 2014 23:50


But it could happen...
Maybe it has already. :p

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress...ell-frozen.jpg

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 23:59


Originally Posted by con-pilot
So back your opinion, your humble opinion, that the Supreme Court in 'practicality' changed the intent or original reasoning and/or wording of the Second Amendment.

You are back with the strawman again, I never said the SCOTUS changed anything.


As for the Korean War, that of course is another strawman, not one of yours but one you, as a loyal Tag Team Troll member, enthusiastically promote. My position on the Korean War is that neither I nor you know who started the war although I am quite comfortable believing that you believe you know, my position is based on knowledge and lack of evidence whereas yours is based on dogma.

rh200 26th Oct 2014 01:31


I think that would have been just a bit over reactive personally.
Very true.


Hell, I was against Gulf War Two, but if Muslim terrorist sets off a nuclear weapon in the US, I think Mecca should be turned into glass.
I wasn't, If I knew there was going to be a idiot after W who was intent on destabilizing the middle east afterwards I might have though differently.

Mind you since the idiot in the white house has managed to stuff a significant amount of the middle east who is to say the same wouldn't be happening anyway in Iraqi?

As for Mecca and glass, there needs to be a staged approach, Medina maybe, or flatten the Temple mount and allow the Israelis to do what they want with it. Whilst there is no actual state involvement, the justification for glassifying Mecca cannot be made.

S

omeone on here the other day explaining there was no Gulf War Two.....that it was just the flaring up again of the first Gulf War.....
You need to differentiate between practical and technical. In essence to the average "Joh Bloh" it was another war. from a legalise side of things it was a continuance.

I believe if I remember correctly we are still technically at war with North Korea? As such most people would see any resumption of hostilities as a new war when it wouldn't be. The devils in the detail in the legal world.

Dushan 26th Oct 2014 02:10


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8713981)
So the 2nd Ammendment could be ammended?

No it cannot. The Costitution can be amended by adding another amendment which could nullify an existing amendment. The 18th established the prohibition and the 21st repealed it.

obgraham 26th Oct 2014 05:50

I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature.

It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

PTT 26th Oct 2014 07:09


Originally Posted by obgraham (Post 8714222)
I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature.

It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Oh yawn. Yet another personal attack instead of addressing the points being made.

If you've even bothered reading what I or he say then you'll have noticed very different styles and different opinions on a number of subjects, including the one at hand. Nor have I ever use the "tag team trolls" label on anyone. Of course, it makes you feel a bit better to try (emphasis on that word) to "make a funny" instead so you feel like you're contributing when actually you have nothing to say.

As to the matter at hand, I have no issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people being able to buy guns without an appropriate level of training - you need training and to pass a test to be able to drive a car, so why not for a gun? I don't see that it impinges on rights under the 2nd amendment, since guns are not the only form of arms out there. You could still own a halberd, should you so desire...
All that would be required (imo) is a basic level of training in appropriate storage, use and maintenance, and a test. I do also think that firearms should be registered in the same way as cars, and for the same reasons. Yes, you'd still get criminals getting hold of stolen guns just as we do with cars, but those law abiding citizens who have them will be trained in their use and respectful of them, and making it less likely for events like the recent Washington one happening.

rh200 26th Oct 2014 07:51


I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature.
Hardly, with PTT you can actually get a half decent conversation.

John Hill 26th Oct 2014 08:44

What would you like to discuss?

Dushan 26th Oct 2014 14:52


Originally Posted by rh200 (Post 8714285)
Hardly, with PTT you can actually get a half decent conversation.

True, as tiring as it gets, he is not sparing any words. JH, OTOH, thinks he can explain the US Constitution and The Federalist Papers in one line sentence.

Even Hemingway couldn't have done that.

BOING 26th Oct 2014 15:53

PTT
The problem with getting any half way sensible compromise on mandatory firearms training or gun sales regulations in the US are the extreme positions taken by the activists on either side. These activists have become the de-facto voices of the majority of the US population and the population is so sick of the interminable wrangling that it is quite happy to let them have the job. The average individual in the US already has a pretty fixed opinion on gun ownership of yes/no/don't care and all of the posturing that takes place is highly unlikely to change their minds.

Here is what happens. Whenever the extreme antis suggest a gun control regulation it tends to be open ended. It is written on the lines of "this regulation controls the sale of the named firearms plus any others that may be added to this list from time to time. Now, even someone who favours a measure of gun control is not going to support such a regulation so it fails but it is totally amazing how nearly every gun control regulation proposed contains such a "poison pill" clause.

Mandatory training rules are used by anti-gun politicians to make gun ownership difficult if not impossible for the average person. See the present situation in Washington DC.

On the other side, the NRA as part of its negotiating position will only argue for zero firearms control because they feel that there are no concessions being offered by the other side that justify any concessions on their part.

And sorry PTT, you will have to leave your halbard at home. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on knives, other edged weapons, cosh type weapons and many types of martial arts weapons such as throwing stars. In fact, in my State your are issued with a concealed HANDGUN license which, literally, means you can carry a concealed handgun but not any other form of concealed weapon.


.

ExXB 26th Oct 2014 16:38


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8714259)
As to the matter at hand, I have no issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people being able to buy guns without an appropriate* level of training - you need training and to pass a test to be able to drive a car, so why not for a gun? I don't see that it impinges on rights under the 2nd amendment, ...

All that would be required (imo) is a basic level of training in appropriate storage, use and maintenance, and a test. I do also think that firearms should be registered in the same way as cars, and for the same reasons. Yes, you'd still get criminals getting hold of stolen guns just as we do with cars, but those law abiding citizens who have them will be trained in their use and respectful of them, and making it less likely for events like the recent Washington one happening.

+1

I also believe that said tests and registration be done by each State's DMVs. They have perfected the testing and issuing of driver's licenses and car registrations. Their information could not be shared with the federal government but could be shared with police officials in other States.

*Appropriate meaning a level agreed between gun industry experts, police forces and huffy puffy left wing NYT readers.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:07.


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