|
| Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | Air Dried Fresh Beef Dog Food | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
|
|||||||
| Politics, Investments & Current Affairs Yea... title kind of explains what this forum is about. |
 |
 Show Printable Version | 
Subscribe to this Thread
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
#31
08-12-2003, 06:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Resistance Is Futile (If < 1ohm) 
|
|
#32
08-12-2003, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So, I suppose the First Amendment is not to be taken literally either. I have notified the authorities, and they will be knocking on your door to confiscate your computer tomorrow morning. That's going too far, huh? And YES...I SHOULD be able to carry my gun anywhere I please, except into YOUR house if you object. An armed society is a polite society. And just because some of the local lawmen of the old west thought they could dictate to the townspeople did not make it right...besides, that was the exception rather than the rule. Do you think that the hijackers of 9/11 would have been able to pull off their dirty deeds had the rest of the passengers been armed? I challenge you to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Perhaps you would care to lecture us on "the spirit of the law," being the Constitutional scholar that you are.
|
|
#33
08-12-2003, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Perhaps we can see some evidence of this......
|
|
#34
08-12-2003, 08:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
yes and taranaki must be a mass muderer acordind to your logic....sorry that argument doesn't work
__________________
 (\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination
|
|
#35
08-12-2003, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
08-12-2003, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No logic here. Nobody is asserting that those in favor of gun control must be mass murderers. Try again.
|
|
#37
08-12-2003, 11:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 ... The Senate recognized the necessity to not take literally the 1st Amendment even as they ratified the sparing language of that Amendment. William Blackstone, in his treatise on English Common Law systems (who's words helped shape both the Declaration of Indepedence and our Constitution), stated that "Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity."Further, after WW 1 the Supreme Court had this to say, which has become the overriding "spirit" with which we deem the 1st Amendment to have been written..."It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would [still] not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." And this is the crux of it. If rights granted also pose such a threat to others' freedom as to create a serious paradox within the law, then the rule of law must be subject to interpretation. The entire reason for Constitutional Amendment is to extend freedom and rights to the People, not an individual. In such circumstances that the rule of law extends rights to an individual that subsequently allows him to impact the freedoms of many others, then it is implicit that this law cannot be taken literally (as it in fact removes freedom from the People, which is contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution). Now argue with that. Ps- Here's your simple answer: NO. Of course the hijackers would not have been able to take over the plane. They in fact wouldn't have tried, because obviously box cutters don't make for an effective weapon against 100 guns. However saying that a 9/11 type event wouldn't have happened because people on planes could carry guns is ridiculous, it simply would have taken a different form (perhaps as with the first World Trade Center attack). A gun doesn't make you immune to a determined attacker sir, sometimes it doesn't even have any use at all. Meanwhile though, there would likely be far more than 3000 additional deaths per year due to the overwhelming commonality of armed civilians. This is why we don't currently let people walk around with loaded guns in most places, in fact the "exceptions" you earlier referred to regarding the ol' wild west is now the rule, isn't it? Do you think this simply came about for no reason, or are you willing to see the last 100 years of law and Supreme Court rulings had something to do with it? Pps- Please offer up one modren example of an armed society as also being a polite and safe one. Just one will do.
__________________
'03 Corvette Z06 '99 Prelude SH
|
|
#38
08-12-2003, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Florida. In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were 478,248 people who received permits to carry firearms. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 39% during that 10-year period. The Florida rate is now far below the national average (as of 1999).
Nationwide. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and if those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly (as of 1999). There's a lot more where that came from. You say "And this is the crux of it. If rights granted also pose such a threat to others' freedom as to create a serious paradox within the law, then the rule of law must be subject to interpretation. The entire reason for Constitutional Amendment is to extend freedom and rights to the People, not an individual." False, false, and wrong. First, freedom is not extended to the people or individuals by the Constitution. Freedom is given by the Creator and recognized by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the subject of the Constitution is chiefly restrictions upon the Federal government (NOT THE PEOPLE). Second, individuals are the "People" referred to throughout the Bill of Rights. Third, the right to carry a firearm does not create a paradox within the law, nor does it threaten the freedom of others, it does more to enhance their freedom than anything---refer to the stats above.
|
|
#40
08-13-2003, 12:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
1) Cite your sources.
2) Make sure the data you supply supports the study's conclusion. 3) Make sure the studies you supply are relevant to the discussion. 4) Don't be so condescending. You must not carry a concealed weapon, you're not nearly polite enough So assuming your data is correct... On point 2, there are approx. 17 million people in Florida. Are you telling me that you believe the reason for a serious drop in crime rate over a 10 year period was all due to less than 3% of the population obtaining CCWs? What other factors, such as improved law enforcement or more aggressive sentencing of violent criminals, were dismissed as not possibly accounting for the drop in homicide rate? On point 3, I haven't and won't argue against CCW permit holders. It's based on finding out what an individual's criminal record is and also guarantees they are properly trained to use the weapon they carry. In other words, it's a PRIVELEDGE extended to those individuals deemed worthy and responsible, NOT A RIGHT. And they still must relinquish that weapon under many circumstances, they can't carry in schools for instance. They also can't carry in any facility which forbids weapons except to officials, such as a courthouse or police station. This is all a far cry from what you are suggesting; that anyone should be able to carry a gun at almost any time simply because they want to. No background checks required, no certification or other training necessary. How is it that you want the 2nd Amendment to apply, to convicted violent criminals and peaceful citizens equally or on some more limiting criteria? On the subject of the Constitution not primarily guaranteeing freedoms to the People, I suspect women and blacks would strongly disagree  So to get more specific (as I should have in the last post) show me an unrestricted firearms policy that creates a polite and safe society. Because its my opinion that carrying a gun is not a right, but a priveledge. And thank God for that. Just imagine,if driving a car were a constitutionally granted right, think how much safer the freeways would be! No need for trained or responsible drivers, just get in and go. This is tantamount to what you are suggesting.
__________________
'03 Corvette Z06 '99 Prelude SH
|
|
#41
08-13-2003, 12:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
no but that was what you implied and texan's points are very good he obviously did his homework about the argument of everyone being alowed to carry a gun on a plane.....do you know what would happen if a bullet would break a window.....now think of an all out fire fight...do the words explosive decompresion mean anything to you
__________________
(\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination
|
|
#42
08-13-2003, 09:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
*Under Construction - New sig to debut*
|
|
#43
08-13-2003, 09:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Resistance Is Futile (If < 1ohm)
|
|
#44
08-13-2003, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Criminals DO prefer unarmed victims! I own several guns. And I'm not giving them up just because some liberal asshole politician thinks I should, either. I'll search Paul Harvey's website; but this was on a Saturday radio show, so I don't know if he keeps transcripts or not.
|
|
#45
08-13-2003, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Besides, the logic isn't mine. This was a story during the Saturday noon show on Paul Harvey. I simply repeated it. 97% of convicted criminals would prefer that the general public is unarmed. What is so surprising about this? Maybe I didn't get my point across the first time.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
 |
|
|
