The gun rights puzzle

[Pongo]

There are some really smart people on this board. Some really smart gun advocates on this board. I have a question that would seem to me to be hard to answer if I understand the fundamental right to guns issue.

Was not the Washington gunman, as an armed citizen of the US, exercising his constitutional right to oppose the government with violence?

If he perceives the US government as tyrannical, is not it his obligation as a citizen to oppose that government?

The same must be true of the columbine killings. Feeling bullied and powerless those boys had the constitutional right to resort to firearms to strike back at their oppressors.

After the fact the courts decide if the use of the gunmen’s judgment was impaired as to whether they were being oppressed or not. But the right to guns is enshrined in the US constitution specifically to allow the above two events to take place.

[Maverick]

The answer to your question in this troll is no. The murderer in Washington was not in conflict with the government. He was a cowardly killer. Nothing more.

There is no constitutional right to commit murder.

[Toad]

How do you construe murdering unarmed civilians that have no ties to the government as "oppose the government with violence"?

As Mav said, it's just a case of serial murder.

[john9001]

pongo , your OS is corupted and is giving out false data, reformat and reinstall then call us back

[easymo]

Do you mean the right to the 10 million bucks he was asking for?

[GtoRA2]

I asked you a question in another post, never mind do not even bother to answer. I could care less.


Man you are just sad.

[Thrawn]

What if he shot only federal government empoyees and representitives?

[lazs2]

since the 2nd amendmant as it applies to revolution is based mostly on locke you would do well to read what locke had to say on the subject of revolution.   Sabre posted a link to a paper that quotes lockes 5 reasons for revolution.   I do not believe that the gunman qualifies as a revolutio by lock's or the seconds defenition... but read it and then come back and tell us what you think.
lazs

[Pongo]

wow lots of hostility.
So the distinction then is you think he was not acting against the goverment. But if he had been. It would be in keeping with the intention of the founding fathers?

Shooting civilains is a time honered tactic in waging war..the concept of the innocence of the victims is irrelivent if he percieves himself to be at war with the goverment. Such actions have been perpetrated in terrorist and guerrilla actions since the invention of the gun.


I dont know if its a troll. I am a gun owner and after reading about the Zebra murders (which ironically led to gun control) I could see that I would want to be an armed white man in the Bay area at that time.

[lazs2]

pongo... no hostility.    You asked a question and I gave you an answer and a means to research it yourself.   You should have read it by now and formed your own opinion.  
lazs

[GRUNHERZ]

This is the dumbest statement about US gun rights that I have ever heard.  Is all of Canada like that?

[Pongo]

Thanks laz our posts over lapped and I never saw yours before my second post,
why dumb GH?
Are not gun rights entrenched to allow individuals the freedom to use guns for thier purposes. I never said the acts were not illegal I said they were the types of things that the gun rights are there to allow.
You want as sociaty were if need be the goverment can be attacked by the poplulation. This guy decided there was need.
I know your opinion on canadians. Its oft stated. We hear ya GH.
And we are working on all your points...honest

[SC-Sp00k]

Not as silly as it sounds if you ask me.  I know little of your Consitution but isnt that the gist of its meaning?

I assume statutory laws take precedence over the consitution.

Now a good arguement would be should you boys with the big hats in the states have guns at all in your homes?

We in Aussie once had your mentality for all things shiny that go bang.  Imho, we were lucky and caught ourselves early before the gun lobby took control of the country as it seemingly has in yours.

Now our people up in the north share your NRA mentality and prove difficult to convince when it comes to firearms, however since we did the buy back scheme and retrieved thousands of them, it appears that a swing of 86% of the country now wants tougher guns laws not leniancy.

I should also state that the excuse of self/home protection imho is a load of goat crap and a weak excuse at the best of times.

I myself had up until the buy back scheme, 6 weapons in the house, including a 1912 sniper rifle and a 50 round drum magazine Russian PPS.  I understand why you think you need them and I also understand why you will fail in understanding, why you dont.

Flame on

[Sabre]

Here is the link Lazs refers to.  Read it carefully, Pongo, and I believe you will understand why the US founding fathers felt it necessary to include the right to be armed as one of our fundamental rights under the constitution.  It's not a light read, but well worth it...if you're question was a serious one.  Spook, I suggest you read it as well.


http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html

Oh, and Spook, all written laws in the US must be judged against the Constitution, not the other way around.  All laws derive there power, if you will, from the Constitution, and must not contradict it.  You may have meant what we call "common law," which is an entirely different animal.  Regardless, the Constitution is the overarching document from which all other laws must not contradict.

[SC-Sp00k]

In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect.

The bozo responsible for this "paper" lost me right here. Firearms are for killing. Nothing more, nothing less.  Under threat of a firearm you will not be pointing yours at his gun hand or his leg to stop him. You will be lucky to get a chance to aim at anything but the big body he presents to you.  You will shoot to kill despite whatever you say afterwards.

Defence against Firearms is a pro-active commitment. You guys are so hell bent on excusing your behaviour with an ancient document that allows no room for social progression in your society.  Be proud of your constitution and what it means to you. But you can hardly cry about the state of affairs in your country with all the badguys, gangs and looney gun owners, if you arent prepared to adapt and accept that the constitution whilst probably valid in many respects cannot possibly hold true for all contingencies that now exist in your society.  Essentially, your problems wont change until you yourself change.

The Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church takes the point a step further, stating that women have a Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the rapist's life. "Is the Robber My Brother?"

I'm reading this without the benefit of being familiar with Laz's post. I hope he isnt advocating the fool who wrote this or its content.  I could go on quoting but this paper should be hanging in a roll in the little room of the house and hence I wont bore you taking it apart any longer.

Im not knocking Americans. Australia thought as you did. I thought as you did. Regretably and not without some shoving did I give up my weapons.  I was wrong.

As a Police Officer who has faced firearm offenders. Used his own (Havent shot anyone yet thankfully) and faces these bozo's that terrorise both our societies, I can honestly say, the best thing that happened to this country was the Gun Control buy back scheme.

2 things make it harder for you guys.

1. Firearms are big business over there. There are a powerful Political entity and one many seem to fear.

2. People like the fool who wrote that paper like to use paranioa  fear and behavioural distortion to reinforce their arguement. Luckily for us, those who chose to do it here didnt weild the power that exists in some of your people over there.

Appreciate the link tho. It was a good laugh, albeit a little scary

Thank you for clearing up the statute vs Constituational power Sabre. Admittedly my knowledge of it is very poor.  I have a rather large belt buckle in a drawer here somewhere with a Grizzly carrying belts of ammo across his shoulders and armed with 2 M16's.  It reads...

"I reserve the right to keep and arm bears."

Thats about as close as I get