Once again, in English please.

I fully understand it, I really do, but we both know you know that :ok:

Lone wolf 50 your right of assembly and freedom of speech took a bit of a beating in the 1950s in the so called MCarthy Era. Written constitutions like the Bible are open to interpretation.

LSM - I was a bit confused by that one too.

Hmm, so a right can bypass logic and reason whilst a law, which exist because of logic and reason (generally) doesn't. Gotcha.

It was BOING, not you. This is what he said:The point is that there are arms which you cannot carry. The Supreme Court has said the right is not unlimited, so there are limitations on this "freedom". We just choose to have a few more collective limitations than you.

Several posts in a row that illustrate the difference between an inherent right, as guarenteed U.S. citizens under the Constitution and laws.

Laws can, usually are, made to satisfy a political agenda. It's how the system works.

One side wins power, it gets to set policy.

The Constitution was emplaced to protect some principles that the Founders, and subsequently, the States who ratified the Constitution, thought so critical that they are never to be subjected to the whims of politics.

Laws are politics, subject to change, subject to repeal depending on the last election.

Amending the Constitution takes time and concerted effort. The states and people will really have to mean it, not react to the latest headlines.

The timeframe from Dunblane to banning was how many days?

The Constitution prevents such heat of the moment giveaways of fundamental American individual rights.

Works for us.

Let me see if I can clarify (yeah, right, as if it would ever sink in).

The government is explicitly prohibited from regulating rights. The Constitution, with its amendments, does not permit anything. It explicitly prohibits the government from interfering, giving the people "the right" to carry on.

So no interfering in religion, speech, arms bearing, unreasonable search, etc. Absolutely no mention about whether plumbers or electricians can or cannot be trained and licensed. Same for drivers. Therefore the states are free to do as they please.

Does the constitution allow you to bear any arms of your choice or are there any limitations, as in weapons you can't own?


Now about my view on American guns?

Well, Lonewolf_50, it's quite a habit you have with not playing the ball. And answering what is addressed to others.

Brick,
I have a couple of serious question which i'm hoping you can answer. You stated a few post / pages back that should the Govt come and try to take your weapons away one day you would "resist them with everything you had" or words to that effect.

Just for arguments sake, lets say that the Amendment gets amended and handguns are banned across the board - No citizen may own one for any purpose.

Continuing the same argument Federal Marshal's come to your door to collect your handguns because you've been a responsible gun owner and registered them. If you then resist as you've said you would are you not then committing treason or some similar offence?

And accordingly does resisting them mean you would shoot them? Then becoming a murderer? Or is that the day you fear the most? i imagine that then defines the Tyrannical Govt no?

Alternatively if you chose not to resist would they really be given ALL your handguns? Is there not one or two squirreled away that they would'nt know about?

SFFP,

Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1934, there were no restrictions. The Act introduced controls on full automatic guns, sawed off shotguns and "destructive devices" which are defined as cannons exceeding 50 caliber. The restriction basically was a background check and $200 fee for those arms. Destructive devices are restricted as to sales and movements. It's all pretty silly. I, in the liberal dungeon of Massachusetts, have several friends with machine guns and Barrett .50 BMG.

GF

I think that the day before the gun confiscation starts an awful lot of people would go fishing with all their guns in the little boat, and would most likely lose them when the water gets rough. Accidents happen.

Can you see why registration of firearms is not a good thing?

If the Constitution were so amended, then my argument becomes moot.

The majority of the states, therefore the citizens, undertook the time and considerable effort to change the Constitution.

My view wouldn't change but my actions would.

Therefore, supposedly my firearms would be properly disposed of.

Since there is no federal or state registry, in most states, the government would have to trust me and hundreds of millions of others to turn in our weapons.

I suppose the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi, the Missourt, the Great Lakes on the US side of the border, and other national bodies of water would be lined with the tragic aftermath of millions of boating accidents where, coincidentally, all of one's guns were aboard and went into the drink.

So, your federal marshalls bursting through the door raises all kinds of Fourth Amendment issues.

I would fight such a change with all of my financial and physical effort resources in getting out the 'no' vote.

Barring a change to the Constitution, the taking or turning in of my firearms without cause is one worth physically fighting for.

A nationwide, or even statewide ban, without such a Constitutional change will mean that those called on to carry out such a raid will have to chose to violate their Oath to "support and defend the Constitution."

Some will, most won't.

An oh dark thirty raid in such an extra-Constitutional raid will likely result in gunfire in not only my home, but millions of others.

Indeed, such happens today when the cops raid the wrong house. Case in California - DEA raided the wrong house; occupant was a former, recent Marine armed with an AR-15. Loud, violent entrance with the word "police" coinciding with the flash-bang, he reacted. He's dead. And the state fcuked it up.

You will see many instances of that under your scenario.

Lots of casualties should it come to that.

It won't.

So, no, I'm no internet commando looking for a federal confrontation. I can see my way ahead should it come, but the liklihood is very, very remote.

It won't come to that. Most feds wouldn't enforce such, and politicians lack the stomach to try very seriously.

If WE decide to amend the Constitution, as far as you, and the state, are concerned, I'm a law-abiding citizen.

EDITED TO ADD: But even Prohibition, incorporated as a Constitutional amendment, was later repealed via the amendment process.
Amazing how much booze was instantly back in people's cupboards.

History tends to repeat itself, right?

Actually thats not entirely true, though that may have changed in the last year or so. Bestiality is a classic case of morals and law. There have been several case that incidents have occurred and states have found out its not actually illegal.

The problem was then, how do they then implement a law to make it illegal and on what grounds? The Oh yuck factor, thats just wrong being the classic case. If you go down that path, then you open the door to some other discrimination issues that have happened in the past, and is not politically correct.

This is not unusual and some countries in Europe where is still/was legal to get warm and cosy with your furry friend, have had the same issues, and got creative to implement effective laws.

Hey, there was a guy on Connecti-crap found raping a pit bull, so anything's possible in BHO's Land of Fruits and Nuts.

GF

Brick,
Thanks for your answers. It's interesting that you leapt to the assumption that Federal Marshals come "bursting through" your door in an "oh dark thirty" RAID.

I didn't define it clearly but i meant they come knocking on your door to request your weapons per the law not pry them from your hands.

Lots of fishermen have guns it would seem.

Right from the very beginning, at least back as far as July 4th 1776, Americans have been writing their sacred documents to be later corrupted in an attempt to have them mean something else or even totally ignored.

There are sacred verses and phrases that although having clear meaning are later used in arguments to mean something else.

The "Second Amendment" is just one example.

Which could be rewritten as:

Right from the very beginning, at least back as far as (insert historical time frame), (Insert favorite group ie. Christians, Muslims etc.) have been writing their sacred documents to be later corrupted in an attempt to have them mean something else or even totally ignored.

Looks like Barry has competition as a Constitutional scholar.

One can suppose that since neither is American, they should be forgiven their actual ignorance.

Pity no comment about the North Koreans executed by little Fat Un for watching South Korean soap operas.

John Hill,

Yes, the moronic Democrat party has been trying just that since Woody Wilson ran to obliterate the Constitution. If you were actual an American, you'd want to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you like, not what's written. What's written doesn't support one of your desires. You'd like to get rid of the 2nd amendment, how do feel about licensing newspaper editors or not having jury trials? I think the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment doesn't actually ban hanging, how about you?

GF

Exactly, so why should I, or anyone else, pay the slightest heed to sacred documents and as argument for or against anything?

It is not something I really care about, it is just like any extract from any of the other sacred documents, Torah, Bible, Koran.

The words say something and the meaning may be clear but revisionists argue they mean something else, that may or may not be significant depending upon on what they were worth in the first place!

So John, guess then that you'd have no problem if Socialism and any form of it was banned in New Zealand?

That cannot happen in the United States due to that document you mock.

What you choose to follow is your own business, what the consequence to those decisions are is wide ranging.

I choose to follow the laws of the country I live in. There are many reasons I do that, even though I may not agree with each and every one of them.

John,

You are the revisionist regarding the Second Amendment. If it was meant your way, it would have not been written that way. It would have said:

"the right to keep and bear arms for those serving in a well regulated militia shall not be infringed". It doesn't say that, does it?

GF

GF, it does say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," but you seem to have ignored that part of it.

Hardly likely as NZ is one of the most socialist countries in this world.

Are you embracing that or simply acknowledging it?

This thread would be shorter than 29 pages if we could fix certain things in the mind of certain contributors.

1. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was recently greatly clarified by the US Supreme Court. Subsequently any opinions about its validity or interpretation are mute so nobody is interested in your opinions or your suggestions.

2. If you can't vote in the US nobody is really interested in your opinions and even if they were your opinions would make no difference.

3. The 2nd Amendment could be replaced by a further amendment but presently it will not happen.
4. Americans do not want to give up their guns and criticism from Europe is likely to annoy them and harden their opinion.

.

John,

Neither the SCOTUS nor I missed the PREFATORY clause that does not condition the "right of the people......"

GF

Absolutely, but that "clarification" can change.
We know. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it. This comes across as an attempt to shut those who you (not you specifically) do not agree with up.
No issues there, but I think the reinterpretation mentioned above is more likely.
Not wanting to give up their guns true of the Americans here, but there certainly are Americans who do want to give up their guns but want everyone to as well. If criticism annoys and hardens opinion then it's not exactly a healthy attitude to bring to a discussion forum. It also makes the position look weak: if it were strong it could be argued on its merits rather than simply being told "you don't have a vote so shut up". That said, some have made sound arguments, I'm simply pointing out that the attitude doesn't help.

Whilst all the facts are far from clear and based on the report as written you would have to ask if mandatory training prior to buying might have made the outcome here and in the almost 17,000 other accidental shooting incidents a little different.

BBC News - Ex-baseball star Jose Canseco accidentally shoots finger

Pedant alert!!!!!

I really wish people would learn to spell different words that sound the same.....getting it wrong can totally alter the meaning of what is written......Perhaps that's what happened with the writers of the American Constitution.

@ BOING said So, , those opinions are silent? incapable of making noise? incapable of speech?

Or did he mean MOOT -questionable? contentious? open to interpretation?

*Pedant mode off*
Personally, I don't give a stuff what the Septics do on their own turf.
I think it's pretty reasonable to let them have guns if they want....they all know the rules, if they don't like it, they can emigrate to a place like Aus...where the Government will suddenly decide to steal and destroy your rifles or the UK, where the government will do the same with handguns...... Apart from alienating a proportion of the electorate, it's totally ineffective, just like the drugs laws. plenty of handguns in the UK, but the ******** politicians think we'll swallow their "protection" afforded by the law which is toothless.

They are free to guve them up any time. They will have to wait for hell to freeze over before the other group gives up theirs.

Choice thing, you know.

Or the USSC to change its interpretation of the 2nd. :ok:

bcgallacher wrote:

Which is why the United States is not a democracy but a Republic. Well, it used to be anyway.

John Hill wrote:

BULLSHIT. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and a few other founders were quite explicit about what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. You just have to know where to look for these definitions. I have done so. You obviously have not.

BCG: re. foxhunting
Using what precisely? Oh, yeah; guns.

BOING: criticism from some Europeans, not all.

You need not get your blood pressure up RG, some here are simply regurgitating talking points from the left simply for emotive purposes. Likely the poster had to look up half the words.