guns

[DirtDawg]

NO amount of reasonable speaking, delightful to know, fun to talk to foreign country folk who have already had their guns taken away are going to have any argument that makes We The Free, We The Brave want to give up ours. Our troubles are tough and we will deal with them, in our own way.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is never going to be an acceptable answer to a self respecting American.

This is where we are.

There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.

It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.

I know that many of you will drop ass all over me for this position, but I do not care. I think most already know where I stand.

[Jack]

The evidence is article three, and the articles of confederation weren't an afterthought.

WTF? Article three doesn't imply anything of the sort. It sets up a federal judiciary. One presumably
based upon the English equivalent, with no right to invalidate laws of parliament, regardless
of any common-law (the constitution as such of the brits) precedents.

Why grant judicial power over the laws of the United States without considering judicial power would be exerted over the laws of the United States?

 It's NOT "over the laws".
The article very clearly states that it is UNDER the laws that Congress may enact.

As to the Articles of Confederation themselves, they didn't even establish a judiciary.
However, I'll grant you that it appears that the judicial act of 1789 - and its after-affects -
show that some of the founders were definitely thinking more in this direction. A bit
of learning for me that definitely made this a worthwhile engagement.

*tips hat*

Correct in under not over, but the presumption of having no rights over congress is a huge leap. Article three not only established the judicial branch, but also assigns their power. It's also been a worthwhile engagement for me. Found this today; thought you might like it. Wikipedia led me to it. Hamilton appears to make it clear this is an intended authority of the court. He also takes the time to say it doesn't mean the judicial branch is superior to the legislative, but it is their responsibility to interpret the constitution and remedy conflicting statutes. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp

[Calandale]

There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.

It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.

The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"

The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.

The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

An outright ban is almost a strawman. It would not work, it is not practical, it is completely unfair to people who use guns for legitimate purposes such as hunting and target shooting.

Pro-gun lobbyists like to make it sound like the choice is between an outright ban and freedom for anyone to own whatever guns they want. That's not the choice at all. It's a false dichotomy.

I am aware that it would be exponentially more difficult to impose sensible gun laws and restrictions in the US than it was in Australia or the UK or Norway or the many other places it has been done. Because of the strength of the gun lobby, the financial backing of the gun lobby, the pro-gun culture. The widespread belief that widespread gun ownership makes people safer.

[Jack]

An outright ban is almost a strawman.

Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban. All matters of practicality or fairness aside, right now it simply seems an impossibility. That doesn't mean it's a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.

I am aware that it would be exponentially more difficult to impose sensible gun laws and restrictions in the US than it was in Australia or the UK or Norway or the many other places it has been done. Because of the strength of the gun lobby, the financial backing of the gun lobby, the pro-gun culture. The widespread belief that widespread gun ownership makes people safer.

It's not just gun Americans do this; it's everything. There's something fundamentally American about apposing the federal government having too much to say about anything. History has shown the states do a better job than the federal government in regulating their own affairs in general, and gun control seems to be no exception. Probably because that's the way it was intended to be.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

An outright ban is almost a strawman.

Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban. All matters of practicality or fairness aside, right now it simply seems an impossibility. That doesn't mean it's not a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.

An outright ban on guns would not work here in Australia, without the rampant gun culture. If you tried to implement that in the US you would have civil war on your hands. The way that gun culture and paranoia is now, I'm not even sure you could apply sensible restrictions without triggering something approaching a civil war.

I'm sure that some people in America do support the idea. That doesn't mean that it is likely or workable.

[DirtDawg]

There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.

It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.

The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"

The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.

The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.

This is where we are.

[DirtDawg]

That doesn't mean it's a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.

Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.

[Jack]

An outright ban is almost a strawman.

Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban. All matters of practicality or fairness aside, right now it simply seems an impossibility. That doesn't mean it's not a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.

An outright ban on guns would not work here in Australia, without the rampant gun culture. If you tried to implement that in the US you would have civil war on your hands. The way that gun culture and paranoia is now, I'm not even sure you could apply sensible restrictions without triggering something approaching a civil war.

I'm sure that some people in America do support the idea. That doesn't mean that it is likely or workable.

Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.

[Calandale]

An outright ban is almost a strawman.

Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban.

Eventually, maybe. But no, when the 2nd Amendment is being used to redirect measures that would
have passed previously in the US, I can see why some who still favor limited gun ownership (say for
hunting, sport, and reasonable self-defense) to pursue such a restriction. Hell, they won't even
accept putting chemical signatures into the gunpowder to aid in crime solving.

[Calandale]

There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.

It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.

The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"

The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.

The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.

This is where we are.

So? Can we not look either forward or backward to times when we weren't having as many mass shootings?

Or, is the gun company profit so damned important?

[Calandale]

Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.

That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.

[Jack]

Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.

That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.

I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun?

I am inclined to take people at their word. I believe DirtDawg when he says that he would not give up his guns without a fight. I don't believe that such an attitude is unusual in the US.

So if all guns were banned, who would be tasked with confiscating guns from people who refuse to surrender them? What happens when military or police refuse government orders to use potentially lethal force against those who refuse to give up their guns? Civil wars have broken out over less.

Why even ban all guns? That just seems to be going from one ridiculous extreme to another.

[Calandale]

Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.

That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.

I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun?

The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.