Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Folks are thowing rep votes in this thread?  That's pretty lame as it was obviously going to be a hot button topic.

I feel the rules for a civilised discussion still apply. If somebody does not follow them, why not use the tool that we have?
May it be as hot as possible, still no reason to get personal, call names or call everybody an idiot. It sure can happen in the heat of the moment, but you can always use the edit function after you have cooled down.

Just my 2 cts.

Who got personal, joe?

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I'm assuming that Skip is talking about the red arrow I have given him. However, it had nothing to do with the discussion at hand or his political opinions, but it was a direct result of this post:

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
This leads me to another opinion of mine based on many years of observation. I hear the African-American leadership decry the idea that a disproportionate number of Black males are in prison. For whatever reasons, and personally I blame  the generally weak family structure in that community, but I would say that the reason for the large percentage  of black males in prison has nothing toi do with policecracism, or racism oif any kind, I believe it is because as a group (not individulas) they simply do not know how to behave themselves. Evidence for this; a black neighborhood gets mad, they riot and ythey burn down their OWN neighborhood...BRILLIANT...and then cry about it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I found this racist and offensive to the extreme, and I gave a red arrow accordingly.

Very lame, sir, and how very typically Communist to hide behind such a lame offense in order to try and shut down thought, Should I throw a red on you because I find you generrally offensive and insulting. I think not, although I am highly offended at your accusations relative to racism, it demonstrates very graphically that haven't a clue about the content about what was said.

You may say whatever you wis, north, I will defend your right to say it to the death no matter how stupid or wrong I may thin it is. You have a right to voice your opinion. However, trhowing a red  on a discussion of this nature does cement an opinion of you that has been building for some time, what that is is my opinion and i shall keep it to myself.

I will say, however, that in this users opinion you are misusing the reputation system over and above its intent, in an attempt to control thoughts and opinions. Tjis is not the first time you have done so, nor do I expect it be the last.

Skip

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
I understand you have the right to defend yourself, but what I do not understand why you should use a weapon with which it is most likely to kill someone. In my point of view you are not any better if you kill someone who wanted to kill you.

Claiming that someone, who kills in sself defense, is no better than the person who tried to kill them is just idiotic.  I agree, killing should be a last resort, but if you try to kill me or mine, and I kill you in the process of defending myself/them, you got what you deserved.

My solution has been to get a dog.  Contrary to what some might have you believe, most housebreakers aren't real fond of loud noises and will simply turn around and find a less troublesome victim.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
My solution has been to get a dog.  Contrary to what some might have you believe, most housebreakers aren't real fond of loud noises and will simply turn around and find a less troublesome victim.

I have a sheep.... which definitely alerts me to when someone's near! 

I have that sign put up outside my door.  I need to find one of those label makers so I can put "NOT A JOKE" under it.

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
I am only aware of the  American Bill of Rights  and it's Constitutional amendments  on the surface .. But was wondering about  this:

If an American citizen is found guilty of firing a firearm or doing mis justice with 'said instrument'.., Would that person be forever barred from ever owing a Gun even though it is in the U.S. Constitution that he has the 'Constitutional rights'  to Bear arms at all times ????? .... like, what does the law say about that??   

Terry:

That would be up to the courts, but typically, yes their Constitutional Right would be revoked as a result of their criminal activity. If you can't do the time (or pay the price) then don't do the crime.

Skip

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
That's what I thought,, so any court conviction (outside of traffic court) would deter , by Law, anyone from getting a gun licence.. 

Not necessarily ANY court conviction.  There are a lot of non-felonious crimes outside of traffic court that do not prohibit someone from owning firearms.  Crimes of violence are a different matter -- as are mental problems, although the ACLU and the psyciatric professionals try to prevent a mentally ill person from being treated differently from a totally sane, mentally healthy one.  The ACLU et. al. see no problem restricting EVERYONE's rights to prevent a mentally distrubed person from obtaining weapons -- because of some right to privacy not present in the Constitution.

Quote:
I've often wondered what your forefathers had exactly in mind when they made that amendment, was for protection against wild life and home invaders ( Indians) .. as well as hunting for food and game..

That was addressed in the Court decision.  The reason the amendment made it into the Constitution was because the framers felt people needed to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical governments.

I learned upon reading the decision that the concept of the right to keep and bear arms dates back to England -- to at least the time when King James (Stuart) attempted to stifle Protestantism by physically disarming Protestant militias.  Needless to say, that didn't sit well with the Protestants in England -- and when William and Mary took the throne, the right of Protestants to keep and bear arms was restored in law.

King George III tried to stifle dissent in the American colonies by disarming the populace.  Apparently he didn't learn the lessons his predecessors taught.  So one of the things the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect was the right of people to defend themselves from the government.  That was probably more important than protection against wild life and invaders (Indians).

The Court decision is quite interesting -- and runs about 150 pages or so.  I'm sure you can find it on the web (here).  It offers a good insight into why the 5 justices who voted to uphold the individual's right to Keep & Bear Arms did so.  Also has 2 dissenting opinions (Stevens and Breyer).  The decision also refutes the major points of Justice Stevens' dissent.

Quote:
But some of these  special tactical weapons available to buy these days were, I don't think. is what the American Bill of Rights, in 1776 was  advocating for its citizens.. In those days didn't they just just  Ferguson Rifles,  flintlock pistols and maybe muskets ..?   

The Court decision also takes issue that the Amendment should only cover the type of firearms available in the 1780s. and why modern weapons are protected, too.  What the decision did not do was reclassify things like fully automatic weapons (machine guns, M-16s) and destructive devices which have been controlled under law since the 1930s.  To own these things, one has to pass a strict FBI investigation and coply with local ordinances/laws.