Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sweet2th on April 19, 2007, 08:12:48 AM
-
This Woman has my VOTE 100%
That mayor looks like an arse.He is most likely to be robbed after this, but for some reason i think he would like it if the robber was rough with him, i don't know really, he seems like he has KooL-AiD in his pockets.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=BDE2B107-50CB-4E71-9E94-B419C7D276D5&f=imbot_us_default&fg=copy
-
Yes she is , and she made her points very well against an idiot. She didn't even have to work hard to make it either.
And your sig...you mispelled her name. Hupp
-
I thought she lost the argument.
The CCW permit that Lazs (and many other people advocate) has two flaws to my mind.
The first one is that a CCW permit is legislation which governs who should be allowed to carry a gun where it might make a difference which is contrary to the view that anyone should be allowed to defend themselves (provided that they're old enough etc)
The second is that if you believe the guy in the video (and I have no idea if what he was saying is right - the woman was saying they had to jump through hoops) virtually anyone can have a CCW as long as they're American nationals without a felony record.
So is the CCW permit just words to control gun ownership (where it really matters) by another name?
Seems to me kind of dishonest of the gun lobby to say....we all should have the right to carry guns and then say...weeeeeeelll some more than others. That smacks of the gun lobby recognising that loons can get hold of guns and use them to terrible cost. In which case, why not just say the state will provide gun licenses (and thereby control who gets to buy them) rather than allowing loons to buy them, conceal them and then use them to kill innocents.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
I thought she lost the argument.
The CCW permit that Lazs (and many other people advocate) has two flaws to my mind.
The first one is that a CCW permit is legislation which governs who should be allowed to carry a gun where it might make a difference which is contrary to the view that anyone should be allowed to defend themselves (provided that they're old enough etc)
The second is that if you believe the guy in the video (and I have no idea if what he was saying is right - the woman was saying they had to jump through hoops) virtually anyone can have a CCW as long as they're American nationals without a felony record.
So is the CCW permit just words to control gun ownership (where it really matters) by another name?
Seems to me kind of dishonest of the gun lobby to say....we all should have the right to carry guns and then say...weeeeeeelll some more than others. That smacks of the gun lobby recognising that loons can get hold of guns and use them to terrible cost. In which case, why not just say the state will provide gun licenses (and thereby control who gets to buy them) rather than allowing loons to buy them, conceal them and then use them to kill innocents.
Ravs
Ravs
What your saying indicates you do not know much about the subject. Not everyone can get CCW permit, only 38(39?) states have laws that make it so a normal non criminal can get them. States like Cali its almost impossible in most areas. I think she would love to see a federal version that trumps the states that try and prevent it like mine.
The only hoops most states that allow it make you go through are a test that show you know how to use the weapon and fees.
-
I’ve seen her before. She was in a restaurant with her parents and left her gun in her car; the law made it illegal to bring a gun into a place like a restaurant. A whacko came in and started assassinating people including her parents. She regrets obeying the law and the fact that the law exists in the first place.
-
Originally posted by ravells
So is the CCW permit just words to control gun ownership (where it really matters) by another name?
Seems to me kind of dishonest of the gun lobby to say....we all should have the right to carry guns and then say...weeeeeeelll some more than others. That smacks of the gun lobby recognising that loons can get hold of guns and use them to terrible cost. In which case, why not just say the state will provide gun licenses (and thereby control who gets to buy them) rather than allowing loons to buy them, conceal them and then use them to kill innocents.
Ravs
CCW permits are a comprimise to the U.S. and 38 state constitutions by which a law abiding citizen of a certain minimum age can apply to carry conceiled upon his\her person in public and use, a pistol for self protection. In most of those states openly carrying in a holster is lawful due to the placing in those afore mentioned constituions words similar or the same as: "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". Ravs it is the fact of that statement being the law of the land that your trolling here on this subject is disengenuous. You have heard all of this befor from BBS members like Laz I suspect. We are not "Nationals", we are Citizens of the United States which means our Rights are open for anyone to investigate by reading our constitution which recognises our right to keep and bare arms "PERIOD". We may need to depose one of our Kings some day dont cha know......
Laz is it 38 states now with CCW or shall issue permits?
In most states of the U.S. any law abiding citizen over a minimum age can purchase firearms. There is a quick query to the FBI which if you have no disqualifying information on record you can pick up your firearm after some number of days waiting period. Aproximently 80M citizens in the U.S. own a firearm or two or even many. Over sesationalization by our biased media downplays the fact that with 80M owners of firearms our safety record of those 80M is the best in the world. Nutjobs like the killer at VT and the inner city criminals who commit the majority of killings with firearms are a infitesimal but highly colorfull blip on our national record that our media likes to export to make other countries think the U.S is the most dangerous country on earth.
-
Well, lets see here. I have my CCW from Virginia and when I went to get it I had to do the following.
1. Provide PROOF of weapons training, either a state sponsored firearms saftey class or proof of military weapons qualification.
2. Submit to finger printing so the local police can perform a NATIONAL background criminal check and submit those prints with the application form.
3. Pay the $50 application fee regardless of whether I actualy received the permit or not. If I hadn't received it I would have been refunded $30 out of the $50, the differance being the processing fee.
Now for most people 2 and 3 are no big deal but the first one trips up many people when they apply. Also it helps to have a drivers liscence from the same state as the permit. The first time I applied I was driving on a South Dakota liscence and the court clerk told me that unless I got a Virginia liscence I probably would not be approved for a CCW since Virginia cross referances CCW's to your drivers liscence.
So yes there are hoops that you have to jump through, but if you have done so you can get a permit fairly easy provided you've never been convicted of anything.
Also as far as the media saying Virginia has the most lax gun laws in the country, I submit that those reporters have never tried to buy a gun in Virginia. Every gun I've bought since I've lived here, I have had to submit paperwork, and have a background check done. Granted it's been easy for me since the only thing on my record is a couple of minor traffic violations, but as a twist on my last purchase just last month (Bushmaster M4A3 rifle) for the first time I was asked to provide a copy of my birth certificate, or passport to prove citizenship. I had to go home and get my BC and go back to the store before they would release the rifle to me.
Now all that being said, what more should I have to do or provide to purchase a firearm or get a CCW? Should I be required to go see a therapist and have my mental state evaluated? Should I have to have a blood test performed? Should I have to submit to a piss test? Should I have to provide a list of personal referances of people to vouch for me? Should I have to wait a couple of weeks between paying for the weapon and then picking it up? Should I be required to explain WHY I want to purchase a certain weapon?
Short answer is NO. I shouldn't have to do any more than what is already required because what is required now is plenty.
-
oh well, I didn't watch the video as it's posted on msn.... they support terrorism and murderers. I don't support msn and hope the who outfit is destroyed.
-
I like the idea of people carrying. If nothing else it forces people to respect others, just in case they have a gun. The crazys would be weeded out over time, with less body count.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I’ve seen her before. She was in a restaurant with her parents and left her gun in her car; the law made it illegal to bring a gun into a place like a restaurant. A whacko came in and started assassinating people including her parents. She regrets obeying the law and the fact that the law exists in the first place.
Sounds like the woman in the Penn & Teller 2nd amendment Bull****! episode.
-
So it looks like the guy in the video was wrong when he said you could only get a CCW licence in Virginia by showing proof of nationality and a clean criminal record.
And the woman may have been exaggerating a bit when she said you had to jump through hoops to get a CCW in Virginia. From what Hornet says there are 3 (possibly 4 if count the driving licence) and they're pretty straight-forward.
GToRA2: I don't know much about the subject, I was working off what they were saying in the video - assuming what has been posted here is correct, and Hornet has personal experience, both the speakers wern't exactly accurate.
Bustr: I hadn't realised that the right to carry a gun openly is lawful in most of the states which have CCW legislation. Arn't US nationals and US citizens the same thing for these purposes?
If I understand you correctly you appear to be saying that the constitution gives you the right to bare (sic) arms. And you seem to think that 'bare arms' means the right to wear arms openly. Actually word used in the costituttion is 'bear (which means carry - whether openly or not). I'm not sure if this was just a spelling mistake on your part and I've misunderstood where your coming from. If on the other hand you really do think that the constitution says you have the right to 'bare' arms and interpret that as the right to carry arms openly, then I'm afraid you've misunderstood your own constitution.
CCW licencing is clever: It can't be said to be unconstitutional because it only determines whether or not you can bear arms openly (as opposed to at all) but that seems a bit weasely to me. It's a bit like saying, oh you've got the right to bear arms, but we're going to restrict your right to bear ammunition.
So the reality (to me as an outside observer anyway) is that CCW permits were introduced as a practical measure to deal with the reality that gun ownership for all meant lots of people getting shot, so the CCW system allows law abiding citizens to hopefully get the drop on the gun criminals by being able to hide their weapons under their clothes.
Makes sense to me, but that is still gun control.
Ravs
-
a concealed carry permit means that the weapon MUST be carried in such a way that the avg person would not know you were carrying a weapon.
How hard it is to get the permit is up to the individual state, however if your state makes it too easy it may not enjoy reciprocity with other states.
open carry is again up to the state, some allow it and one state requires that a weapon be carried open and not concealed.
i only know about getting a CCW in florida, it's not easy, quick or cheap.
-
rav.. I don't understand most of your point or if I do understand it then the facts destroy most of it. Those with concealed carry permits do not kill innocents.. they are, as a group. the most law abiding of any group.
I do understand the other part. And yes.... I do believe that all citizens should be allowed to bear arms so long as they are not crazy but...
I am also pragmatic. I see that we have strayed a long way from that and realize that to get back rights that should be ours anyway... we have to take what we can get.
concealed carry is a huge step forward in getting back our rights. anyone who values their second amendment rights will support more easily obtained concealed carry permits.
If you can eliminate all the "hoops" save safety training and sanity.. you have gone back to the basic right. concealed carry is the gateway to getting back our rights.
as for concealed or open carry... that is another subject.
-
The point I was making is that as it currently stands the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter. The 2nd Amendment provides no restrictions to the right to bear arms. Under the 2nd Amendment, if you read it plain, you have the right to bear arms whether you are 10 years' old, as mad as a cut snake or have a string of convictions for murder or have had no safety training whatsoever.
It seems to me that most people, even if they are pro gun ownership, do recognise that there need to be *some* restrictions to the second amendment. The entire argument about gun ownership (to my mind) has nothing to do with upholding the second amendment but in deciding the *extent* to which the 2nd Amendment should be curtailed. Pro guns - less so (but still some), Anti guns - more so (or in the extreme abandoned entirely).
It appears to me that CCW is supported by the Pro gun lobby, but by definition CCW lays down even more conditions about the manner in which one can carry a gun - so CCW curtails the 2nd Amendment yet further. Which is counter-intuitive to what the pro gun lobby stand for (as far as I can see).
Shouldn't the pro gun lobby (or pro second amendment lobby) be anti CCW and campaiging instead for everyone to have the right to buy whatever gun (well it says 'arms' which could mean any weapon up to a nuclear device I suppose) he chooses, wear it how he likes (concealed or not), regardless of his age or history (criminal, mental or otherwise) ?
If the pro gun lobby were to take that stand they would lose too much credibility. So instead the concept of CCW is arrived at which is nothing more than a filter to channel gun ownership into the hands of the people who meet certain criteria - and that is gun control which is being championed by the pro gun lobby.
That's all I'm saying.
Ravs
-
Ravells, there is also Open Carry and there are various state imposed limitations on that. Further, localities (cities, counties, etc.) can add further restrictions. Generally, every lower layer of government can add more restrictions but can never be less restrictive than a higher level of government.
That said, there are Open Carry states that are preemptive; the state allows Open Carry and lower levels of government are preempted from being able to make their law more restrictive than the state.
Some states have absolutely no restrictions on Open Carry. So, there's more to it than just Concealed Carry and the whole right to bear arms situation is somewhat complicated.
-
Thanks Toad, but that's amazing. Does that mean that individual states have the right to fetter the freedoms guaranteed in the federal constitution on anything or is it just the 2nd Amendment?
Or is it that there is legal authority which says imposing conditions on the right to bear arms is not by itself a breach of the second amendment? I.e. you can impose whatever conditions you like as long as you don't abolish the right itself.
Ravs
-
Actually, it's all in contention.
For example, a US District Court just struck down the Washington, DC, gun ban. It is being appealed and could make it to the SC.
Gun rights are always in contention here; there's no denying there's a segment that wishes the 2nd was not in the Constitution so they are continually trying to restrict it. Obviously, there's a segement of the population that resists restrictions.
Ebb and flow, Yin and Yang. So it goes on.
-
There are restrictions on every right we have as Americans. You can't yell Fire in a movie theater can you? No it's against the law, BUT the 1st Ammendment gives you the right to freedom of speach. So WHY can't you yell fire? Because COMMON SENSE dictates that doing something like that is dangerous. With that in mind it makes sense that you do not allow convicted criminals or the mentaly unstable to own a gun. Why? Because it's dangerous.
I am VERY pro gun. I also believe that we need some common sense laws concerning gun ownership. Yes you MUST be a legal adult to own a firearm. Makes sense. NO you may not own a firearm if you are a convicted criminal or have been by deemed by competent authority of being mentally unstable. Makes sense. I also believe anyone that wants to buy a gun should provide proof of weapons safety training. That's not a requirment now but it should be in my opinion. It makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is the arguement that banning guns all together will make this country safer? How will it do that? How will taking my right to defend myself away from me make me feel safer? It doesn't because I KNOW that I can't trust the government to bail me out when someone breaks into my home. The only person at that point I can count on is ME.
-
"You can't yell Fire in a movie theater can you? No it's against the law, "
well, what if it is on fire?
-
Originally posted by john9001
"You can't yell Fire in a movie theater can you? No it's against the law, "
well, what if it is on fire?
Then your not exercising your freedom of speach, you are providing a public service. BIG differance. Again COMMON SENSE.
Unfortantly in this country common sense isn't so common anymore, and that's the BIG problem we face here. I mean after all these school shootings and stuff in "gun free" zones, you'd think common sense would break out and people would think to themselves, "Hmmm maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all" but NOOOOOOOOOO, lets pass more laws and make even more gun free zone so the criminals, i.e. those folks that don't care about the laws to begin with, have even more targets to pick from in the future. Yeah that's real smart.:huh
-
Unfortunately (or fortunately) the courts don't recognise common sense per se as authority for an argument. Often, what may be common sense to you may not be common sense to someone else.
In interpreting the constitution, the Judge has to put himself into the mind of its drafters and come to a view as to what was intended if the plain words are ambigious or yeild a manifestly unjust result. Often this can be the judge exercising his or her common-sense on the issue, but not always as there is precedent to consider as well.
As Toad has pointed out, there is a lot of litigation about the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and it's just one of those areas where different people have different views as to what the answer is. It looks like it's an area in which there are no easy answers particularly because the political and social landscape have changed so much since the 2nd Amendment was drafted that many of the reasons that preyed on the drafters' minds then are irrelevant now.
It's a bit like trying to put a modern meaning to 'Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. '
-
Ravs, there is a rather large amount of detailed writing from the Founders on the issues of firearms and the citizenry. Additionally, there are the Constitutions of the the original 13 states that set out firearms rights for their citizens prior to ratifying the Federal Constitution.
It really isn't a matter of interpretation.
There is a lot of litigation but that's simply because there's a lot of people who are anti-gun that would like to twist, obscure and change the clear and simple meaning of the 2nd.
Any fair hearing on what the Founders meant comes to an inescapable conclusion. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-
With respect Toad, the Supreme Court judgments I've just looked at on the 2nd Amendment Wiki say to me that there has been interpretation over the years carried out to discover the meaning of the words.
What I found interesting in particular (which I think answers my question about the ability of the state to restrict gun ownership) is the decision in Presser which seems to say that the 2nd Amendment applies to Congress only, so although Congress can't restrict the right of gun ownership, individual states can (which I think is kind of weird). Presser was discussed in a later decision which said:
As we have noted, the parties agree that Presser is controlling, but disagree as to what Presser held. It is difficult to understand how appellants can assert that Presser supports the theory that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right which the state cannot regulate when the Presser decision plainly states that "[t]he Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
I like the idea of people carrying. If nothing else it forces people to respect others, just in case they have a gun. The crazys would be weeded out over time, with less body count.
What Filth said..
-
Originally posted by ravells
With respect Toad, the Supreme Court judgments I've just looked at on the 2nd Amendment Wiki say to me that there has been interpretation over the years carried out to discover the meaning of the words.
What I found interesting in particular (which I think answers my question about the ability of the state to restrict gun ownership) is the decision in Presser which seems to say that the 2nd Amendment applies to Congress only, so although Congress can't restrict the right of gun ownership, individual states can (which I think is kind of weird). Presser was discussed in a later decision which said:
You can't say that states have the right to overide the 2nd amendment without giving them the right to trample the entire bill of rights.
-
Originally posted by ravells
With respect Toad, the Supreme Court judgments I've just looked at on the 2nd Amendment Wiki say to me that there has been interpretation over the years carried out to discover the meaning of the words.
What I found interesting in particular (which I think answers my question about the ability of the state to restrict gun ownership) is the decision in Presser which seems to say that the 2nd Amendment applies to Congress only, so although Congress can't restrict the right of gun ownership, individual states can (which I think is kind of weird). Presser was discussed in a later decision which said:
Ravs, did you read Miller? The basis for that decision was that a "sawed off shotgun" was not a military weapon. There is ample history that clearly shows sawed off shotguns were used in the Revolution, the Civil War and not long before Miller the Army issued 16,000+ Winchester 97 sawed off Trench Shotguns in World War I. There is a specific example of what I meant by twisting, obscuring and changing the meaning of the 2nd.
As for Presser, would you then logically conclude as Iron just pointed out that the States can regulate the right to free speech (1st Amendment)? It simply doesn't wash; Presser is another flawed decision.
The meaning of the 2nd is clear. It is supported as an individual right by the Founders other writings and by the state constitutions of the early states that later ratified the Constitution.
-
what toad said:aok
-
I havn't read any of the decisions in full, just the excerpts in the Wiki entry.
I read the excerpts of the Miller decision and agree that it doesn't make sense to uphold the conviction on the grounds that a sawn off shotgun is not a military weapon. It smells of a policy decision, but that's just my gut reaction. ... But I was dealing with your point about the interpretation being crystal clear. It seems to me that the second amendment is need of a modern overhaul to clarify exactly what (if any) the restrictions to gun ownership in the US should be (children, the insane, previous convictions etc). I suspect it's too much of a political hot potato for any politician to want to touch.
You may say that Presser and Miller are flawed, but they're the law and whether we think they're right or wrong is irrelevant. Like Luckster, I find it strange that states can restrict Federal rights which are supposed to be inalienable. BUT as Horney pointed out there has to be an application of common sense (shouting 'Fire' in the Cinema).
So...it looks like the 2nd Amendment is a bit creaky in the bones and needs an injection of new life, but as I said that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Ravs
-
I don't think it needs anything except to be followed.
It's real simple, it's real clear and it is supported by history.
As I said, the only arguments are made by those trying to twist it into something it is not.
-
rav.. I believe that we should get back to the second with no restrictions save...
What are the "people" are they the insane? we say not.. we take away their constitutional rights all the time... not just the second.
Are they minors? seems not.. they have no constitutional rights as "people" that I can see.
Are they criminals? no.. not hardly.. we put them on parole where they give up their rights to get out early.
So what is your point? I have no conflict on the second and see no restrictions as being acceptable.
lazs
-
My point is that the second amendment needs more clarity so it makes sense in a modern context.
As it currently stands, it allows everyone without exception the right to bear arms. It needs to specify the exceptions otherwise a lot of lawyers are going to get rich arguing about the extent to which it should be curtailed.
-
Originally posted by ravells
My point is that the second amendment needs more clarity so it makes sense in a modern context.
As it currently stands, it allows everyone without exception the right to bear arms. It needs to specify the exceptions otherwise a lot of lawyers are going to get rich arguing about the extent to which it should be curtailed.
I think it very unlikely Americans could agree on a "clarification" that would satisfy everyone enough to result in a constitutional amendment passing. I would also find it abhorrent should the SC decide to take matters into their own hands and reinterpret the constitution. For better or worse, we're going to live with the second as is for a long time.
-
No ravs... It does not need to be clearer. Once you decide who the "people" is there is no conflict. You can't infringe on their right to keep and bear arms.
You can't take away their rights and... more, the federal government should defend people from states who would infringe on those rights.
Are we violating the second at this time? Most certainly. Will it be easy to restore rights? no.. it will be no easier than the civil rights struggle was.
Miller said that if a gun was not useful as a military arm then it could be restricted under the second.. It is obvious that they were wrong out of ignorance. in the first miller decision one of the judges had a full auto submachine gun war trophy in his closet and was assured by the ATF liars that he would not have his right to own it infringed. They claimed that a sawed off shotgun was worthless for war. This is obviously (to even a casual historian) wrong.
The latest federal ruling in DC states that the second is an individual right. This is tantamount to saying a woman has a right to get an abortion or that negroes are human.
Just saying so is the first step.. the debate will continue.
But... I feel that people are starting to get the point that the second is just what it says... and individual right and a human right given to us by the creator.. something a government has no right to infringe on.
Groups like the aclu have an agenda that is counter to human rights in this case and are ashamed of it.. they try to ignore the whole issue because they know they are wrong.
lazs