Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Gifts and supplies for the musician
SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
Ad (Piano Sing)
How to Make Your Piano Sing
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pianoteq
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
Who's Online
135 registered (Anita Potter, AnimistFvR, anamnesis, accordeur, Alan Cyr, acoxcae, 36 invisible), 1686 Guests and 19 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Pianos
Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#761413 - 11/12/03 09:29 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Manitou Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/08/02
Posts: 1044
Loc: Colorado
Benedict et al ...

Back to original query.
I would agree that overall, the members of this forum are prone to attack versus debate. Benedict, as any good Frenchman (which I am) was brought up in a society in love with words, philosophy and debate. But, contrary to the US, in France they learn to debate without picking a side, or, to enjoy debate simply for debate, without emotionally trying to justify a "side" they feel strongly to be correct.

This is how I enjoy discussion as well, for If I have not put my beleifs at stake, I have nothing to lose, yet much to gain in discussion.

I would suggest that we may want to try harder to lose the aggression and focus more on the discussion. And Tom, you should maybe pop a few Valium or Ridulin before you log-on as your overall demeanor on this forum seems rather hostile and overly sarcastic. Again, try to debate the issue without emotions, simply with thoughts and where possible, facts.

*Disclaimer* I am not perfect, and know that I show signs of intolerant debating as relates to religion and God, this I regret.

Manitou - Pianist - Technician
_________________________
Manitou - Pianist - Technician

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#761414 - 11/12/03 09:38 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
Manitou, on the other hand, if you don't care about an issue why debate it at all? While jodi might want to discuss the advantages of a Buckeye over a Chantecler, I'm certainly not going to argue for a Jersey Giant or Wyandotte over either of those.
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#761415 - 11/12/03 10:06 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
In the case of firearms, property rights, and the right to self defense, I would say that they are inseparable.

However, don't y'all go shootin' holes through the house with your Casull. Shooting someone inside an inhabited building calls for a careful mindset in weapon selection.

My favorite? A 20 gauge Youth Model 870. Built on the LT frame, it only weighs 5 lbs, and is less than the length of many .22 rifles. Standard combat load is all 2 3/4" shells - 2 #7.5, 2 #3buck, and 1 7/8 oz slug. At short range within a house, fine shot is just as lethal as buckshot, 'cuz you are going to drive the wad through them anyway, and the finer shot tends not penetrate typical stick construction.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#761416 - 11/12/03 10:56 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
kluurs Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/24/02
Posts: 3739
Loc: Chicago
I guess the one difference between gun ownership and property ownership in "my world" would be that I would say that one has the right to bear arms until that point one holds up the liquor store with a weapon.

At that point, I believe that individual should abrogate that "right." That is, one strike and you lose the right to bear arms. It is important that this "right" not be abused.

Ken

Top
#761417 - 11/12/03 11:13 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
shantinik Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/23/01
Posts: 4271
Loc: Olympia, WA
 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Renauda:
I see, so property (i.e. guns and WMD) are in but universal health care for all is out because it is a commercial commodity that should be bought and sold [/b]
I believe I could be forgiven for believing that you are poking fun but unless you are proposing universal government provision of firearms or even universal government provision of personal security (without the police state that would have to go along with it) then, yes, you would be correct. [/b]
I think the government should provide for universal government provision of fishing lures (only those that can be used in the context of a well-regulated militia; I'm still mulling on anthrax spores), which doesn't mean they can't heavily regulate them (or even take them back!) without Constitutional interference.

Top
#761418 - 11/12/03 11:25 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
TomK Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 2611
 Quote:
Posted by Manitou: And Tom, you should maybe pop a few Valium or Ridulin before you log-on as your overall demeanor on this forum seems rather hostile and overly sarcastic. Again, try to debate the issue without emotions, simply with thoughts and where possible, facts.
[/b]
Point taken. But, I'm a simple American businessman. Within the "rules" I play to win. Nothing personal. I'd buy benedict dinner tonight. I like the guy--he was, in this debate, simply the "opposition." Nothing more. Tommorrow he may be my friend.

He and his coterie attacked apple, who is my friend, and I took her side. Nothing more.

But.........I play to win.

Top
#761419 - 11/12/03 12:12 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
JB:

Nothing puzzling

All pistols including single and double action revolvers are out. Some exceptions however, may be made for antique muzzle loaders if the owner is registered collector.

Are our communities that dangerous and violent that we *need* weapons to defend our lives and property from others? Self defence and defence of property are perfectly a legitimate excuses to justify the mass distribution and consumption of firearms. We have come to rely on credible deterrence as a means of defending or at least a means justifying the expense and maintenance of defence whether it be nationally or as in this case, personally.

Gryphon goes to great effort to show statistics of crime and murder rates in order to justify the rationale behind the excuse to own firearms. But how often are these weapons used in domestic violence rather than self defence? How do the statistics reflect the misuse of the right to bear and own firearms? It is not a God given right but rather an earned right own and operate a firearm.

But then again, the right under discussion here was never intended for self defence but rather against government encroachment on private property. Goes to show that the state really is the organ of mass repression by the elites on the private property of individuals.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761420 - 11/12/03 12:36 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Manitou Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/08/02
Posts: 1044
Loc: Colorado
What purpose does debate, for the sake of debate, serve?

I would propose, the same as any dissimination of information, where no oppportunity for action or change is possible. I.e, this very forum.

Here we trade and receive information. But, unless one of us is positioned in society, in a way to utilize this info, and affect society; then the purpose of discussion here serves only those who can gain knoweldge from it, personally.
We all talk and discuss things which, because of our lack of influence, are in a sense meaningless, yet we continue to talk. This is good, and normal.

P.s, glad no one caught, or commented on my typo earlier (Ritalin), brain was slow this morning..

Manitou
_________________________
Manitou - Pianist - Technician

Top
#761421 - 11/12/03 12:43 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
 Quote:
Originally posted by Manitou:
... glad no one caught, or commented on my typo earlier (Ritalin), brain was slow this morning..

Manitou [/b]
Not to worry, a strong coffee or two will pick things up. All the same, you seem fairly sharp to me this fine morning. \:D
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761422 - 11/12/03 01:52 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
Renauda, no, I did *not* use statistics to show the need for firearms. I used statistics to show that firearms ownership is not directly correlated to homicide rates. Just the opposite.

You see firearms ownership as a priviledge, I see it as a right. So do a lot of other people. We have a right to be able to defend ourselves.

Here's a few random stats. Death by:

autos, 43,000
falls, 16,200
poisons, 11,700
firearms, 9,300 (that includes all justifiable and self-defense)
knives, 1,800

It is acknowldged that driving an automobile is not a right, it is a priviledge that has to be granted. But we don't prohibit auto ownership even though auto accidents kill five times as many people as firearms. Now you asked about domestic violence? There's no direct statistic for this re firearms. We know that 12.7% of all murders were the result of domestic violence, but that includes beating, stabbing, poison, suffocation, etc. as well as firearms.

Anyway, to get this back on topic, and just to use you as an example, even though Canada has restrictive gun ownership, your homicide rate is not that far behind ours at 73% of our rate. Other more restrictive countries are higher than the US. Does that prove anything? What does it all mean?

The US has well over 200 million privately owned firearms. (Some say this is pretty low estimate). 45% of all US households have guns. In the US, it is estimated that there are 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year. [/b] The US Deptartment of Justice found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed.

But the issue is whether or not you think people should have the right and the means to defend themselves. I do.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, the US's leading constitutional lawyer (who by the way is liberal and decidedly pro-Clinton) and who wrote American Constitutional Law, a standard text used in law schools since 1978, has even acknowledged that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.

So if Canada doesn't want to allow firearms ownership, that's up to Canada. It's in the fabric of our founding documents, though, and that's the difference.
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#761423 - 11/12/03 02:06 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
While jodi might want to discuss the advantages of a Buckeye over a Chantecler, I'm certainly not going to argue for a Jersey Giant or Wyandotte over either of those. [/b]
Finally, something I can relate to. Big 10 football. (Go Illini!) But, they must've added a few more teams since I was there...

:p :rolleyes: :p

(how on earth did you get from guns to chickens?)

\:\) Jodi

Top
#761424 - 11/12/03 02:26 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
Gryphon:

This is where I cannot follow your reasoning. I do not question that you or anyone has a right to self defence when threatened. But when you speak of the right to bear arms is it for self defence or is it the right to own and defend private property from state encroachment? Please tell how it is that you feel so threatened in your daily life that it is a constitutional or implied Divine right to own a firearm. I truly cannot accept the argument or excuse that gun ownership has anything to do with the right to self defence but rather defence of private property from state encroachment.

A firearm is a tool that requires responsible handling and training. Ownership and operation of such a tool is not a right but rather an earned privilege. People are not born with the innate right to own and operate firearms any more than as you say, they are born with the right to drive a motor vehicle.

What this country's laws are regarding firearm ownership is neither here nor there. Canadians purchase firearms for three purposes 1) hunting 2)target shooting and 3) collecting. Self defence against criminals or defence of private property from state encroachment do not factor into the purchase of a weapon. We are are not that cynical about the country and community in which we live.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761425 - 11/12/03 02:53 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
 Quote:
Originally posted by Renauda:
I do not question that you or anyone has a right to self defence when threatened.[/b]
Good. Then tell me how my 125 pound wife is to defend herself against a couple of 200 pound rapists?
 Quote:
But when you speak of the right to bear arms is it for self defence or is it the right to own and defend private property from state encroachment?[/b]
We have a right to defend ourselves from the government or any who wish to do us harm. Period. A firearm is just a tool to assist us in this, nothing more.
 Quote:
Please tell how it is that you feel so threatened in your daily life that it is a constitutional or implied Divine right to own a firearm.[/b]
That statement is a non-sequiter (or something) If it is a constitutional right or a divine right, then whether I feel threatened or not doesn't enter into the question. And I have already shown you that it is a constitutional right. But this only applies to the US.
 Quote:
People are not born with the innate right to own and operate firearms[/b]
People are born with an innate right to defend themselves. Our country's founding documents say that firearms are part of that right. Whether you think man has the right to own a firearm or not in Canada is immaterial. And your friends, why can't they hunt with arrows. Or go to the foodstore like everyone else?
 Quote:
We are are not that cynical about the country and community in which we live. [/b]
We are.
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#761426 - 11/12/03 03:08 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
Hey, just looking at some numbers. I didn't realize it, but the crime rate in Canada is over twice that of the United States.

Canada 8,572 per 100,000
USA 4,160 per 100,000

And since your homicide rate approaches ours, what makes you feel so safe?
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#761427 - 11/12/03 03:13 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
 Quote:
Whether you think man has the right to own a firearm or not in Canada is immaterial. And your friends, why can't they hunt with arrows. Or go to the foodstore like everyone else? [/b]
Some probably do still hunt with arrows- although that is not what you meant as I sense your implication is elsewhere- and go the food store but that is their choice. They do however have a Aboriginal treaty rights that are constitutionally upheld to hunt and fish year round on crown land in order to feed themselves. As Aboriginal Canadians that is their privileged right under the law. Restricting ownership of firearms for the purpose of hunting undermines their rights as Aboriginal people.

 Quote:
We are are not that cynical about the country and community in which we live. [/b]
We are. [/QB]
I was afraid so but thank you for confirming it anyway. It shows.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761428 - 11/12/03 03:19 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
 Quote:
Originally posted by Renauda:
They do however have a Aboriginal treaty rights that are constitutionally upheld...Restricting ownership of firearms...undermines their rights[/b]
As do we have rights that are constitutionally upheld. What's so hard to see about that?
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#761429 - 11/12/03 03:26 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
Hey, just looking at some numbers. I didn't realize it, but the crime rate in Canada is over twice that of the United States.

Canada 8,572 per 100,000
USA 4,160 per 100,000

And since your homicide rate approaches ours, what makes you feel so safe? [/b]
Impaired driving (in excess of .08% blood alcohol or under the influence of narcotics), Dangerous driving as well as simple possession of controlled substances fall under the Federal Criminal code. Right now we are trying to have Marijuana possession removed. These could account for the statistically higher crime rate. I don't know.

Why do I feel safe? Don't know but probably because I do not associate with criminals or frequent their venues as a matter of social intercourse.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761430 - 11/12/03 03:32 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Renauda:
They do however have a Aboriginal treaty rights that are constitutionally upheld...Restricting ownership of firearms...undermines their rights[/b]
As do we have rights that are constitutionally upheld. What's so hard to see about that? [/b]
But as Shantinik has reasonably demonstrated not all Americans concur with your interpretation of this right.

It's a question of private and personal property always has been, even in the Civil War.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761431 - 11/12/03 04:11 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
shantinik Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/23/01
Posts: 4271
Loc: Olympia, WA
There are no more (federal) Constitutional rights to own an "arm" (be it a pistol, hunting rifle, or nuclear weapon) than there are to own a can opener (or a fishing lure) except in the context of it being useful to a well-regulated militia. Courts have been very consistent on this since 1939, the last important case - in which both Rehnquist and Burger concurred - in 1981 (and the last time the NRA has dared to contest the issue.)

Needless to say, you DO have the right to own a can opener, unless the government sees fit to regulate it, limit it, or ban it entirely, unless, of course, a court finds a can opener to be an arm of use to the militia.

Top
#761432 - 11/12/03 04:39 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
 Quote:
Originally posted by Renauda:
not all Americans concur with your interpretation of this right.[/b]
But a liberal weenie who is afraid of guns doesn't hold the same legal weight as a constitutional authority. If one day enough of the country thinks the US should no longer guarantee that right, then I suppose they could amend the constitution to state so. Just as they could take away the freedom of religion and make us an Islamic state.
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#761433 - 11/12/03 05:29 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
[QUOTE] If one day enough of the country thinks the US should no longer guarantee that right, then I suppose they could amend the constitution to state so. [/b]
Assuming of course, that the Constitution currently guarantees that as a personal property right. I'll repeat, Shantinik has provided us all with reasonable evidence to the contrary. Furthermore you seem to concur that other American citizens including judicial authorities, share this understanding and interpretation.

Also I wouldn't, if I were you, lose any sleep over the fear of the US ever becoming an Islamic state at least during this Millenium. With the present demographic trends Roman Catholicism would be the more plausible scenario. Don't worry be happy! \:\)
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761434 - 11/12/03 05:56 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
shantinik Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/23/01
Posts: 4271
Loc: Olympia, WA
The U.S. no more guarantees the right to bear arms outside of the context of a well-regulated militia than it guarantees the right to own a can opener. (Both are "property rights".) And from actual court decisions since 1939, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court (with Rehnquist and Burger in concurrence) in 1981, it is more likely to regulate and/or ban the personal possession and use of firearms than they are that of can openers.

The NRA doesn't like this reality, but it is clear from two decades of history that they are not willing to challenge it.

Top
#761435 - 11/12/03 06:09 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
I'm satisfied, others should be too, unless of course they don't trust the Supreme Court to decide on constitutional issues... Oh dear, I shouldn't have said anything... that could raise some potential questions about the US Supreme Court's ruling on the Florida vote count in the last election. Wouldn't want to raise any hackles here.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761436 - 11/12/03 07:47 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
I don't question the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment so much as I question Shantinik's interpretation of their interpretation.

We have already beaten Miller to death and it is obvious that Renauda chooses to accept Shantinik's rather facile reasoning over what is plainly stated in the ruling. Far from rejecting the notion of an individual right it reaffirms that right. It is a rather flawed ruling (incomplete to be more precise) in that its logic leads to absurd results (as Shantinik has demonstrated). However, it is silent on the subject of self-defense and it can in no way be interpreted as limiting the ownership of firearms to militia use only.

As far as Burger is concerned, I am not familiar with the particular case to which he refers but a statement by a particular Justice (who, by the way, was famously hostile to the individual right interpretation) made during oral arguments does not constitute a "ruliing".
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#761437 - 11/12/03 08:36 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
jkeene Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 701
Loc: Central Florida
Actually as recently as 1990 the Supreme Court said the second amendment was probably an individual right. In the Verdugo-Urquidez the court listed various references in the Constitution to rights of the people, and wrapped it up with

"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." [/b]

It doesn't require any rubber band logic to understand that plainly.

There's more at Guncite.com , a useful reference for dispelling myths.

Top
#761438 - 11/12/03 11:30 PM Re: Au revoir les amis !
shantinik Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/23/01
Posts: 4271
Loc: Olympia, WA
There has never really been a question as to whether it is an individual right. What the courts have ruled repeatedly, however, is that the right enunciated in the Second Amendment (as opposed to "can opener" rights) only applies in the context of a well-regulated militia.

The proof, of course, is in the pudding. As far as I am aware, there are no laws regulating the sale, possession, and use of can openers, but there are dozens (and in dozens of states) regulating the sale, possession, and use of firearms, including bans on particular types of weapons. And when tested, these laws are virtually always upheld.

In other words, the Second Amendment conveys fewer rights to firearm possession than are conveyed by property rights to owners of can openers.

Top
#761439 - 11/13/03 04:39 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Shantinik, you are wrong. Totally, utterly, completely, wrong. Your comparison of buying, selling, and owning can openers is ridiculous. It is what Jbryan aptly named "fun logic". We have a right to defend ourselves. Guns are a defense mechanism, and reasonably intelligent men understand that. Can openers are not a defense mechanism - they're can openers.

The Constitution says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Can openers are not called "arms". The Constitution does not say "the right of the people to open metal cans shall not be infringed". The Constitution was not written by a bunch of men sitting around seeing who could come up with the silliest idea - it was written by sober men of good sense, serious in their purpose, to make sure the people would always be free, and safe from their government. As of now, I'm unaware of the government assembling a can opener platoon, so I think it is reasonably certain we don't have to worry about jackboot thugs wielding can openers surrounding our homes. But your claim above is not only completely wrong, it is dumb.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#761440 - 11/13/03 08:13 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
The logic of Miller, shorn of sophistry about can openers and suitcase nukes, would lead one to reasonably conclude that the Second Amendment affirms the individual right to own whatever types of arms are standard issue in the military today. It does not necessarily limit one to these arms it simply states that the regulation by the state of a sawed-off shotgun is beneath judicial review. I am unaware of any infantry units that are issued suitcase nukes let alone sawed-off shotguns.

Moreover, the Miller decision does not say anything about the use of a firearm, the ownership of which is protected in any case, for the purpose of self-defense. Shantinik brings up some rather glib remarks made by a Justice during oral arguments about hunting and fishing as some indication to the contrary. This is nonsense. Hunting and fishing are not even under discussion here and a few off-hand remarks do not transform a firearm into a fishing lure (or can-opener).

Central to Shantinik's thesis is the presumption that nothing short of WMD is practical for use by the populace in defense against the government. This, also, is preposterous as it presupposes both that the government would resort to the use of WMD against its own population and that a populace in possession of even small arms is no deterent against tyranny. It takes little thought to see the difference between having only to employ the mere threat of force and the certainty that its use will be necessary when abrogating personal or civil rights of the people.

I will not go into existing federal and state laws other than to say that, in the case of federal laws, it has already been established that the Second Amendment does not allow us to own any type of weapon we want (so much for suitcase nukes). Some reasonable regulations have been understood in general to be acceptable. In the case of state laws, this is an example of the Supreme Court's unwillingness to extend the same Fourteenth Amendment protections to the Second Amendment as they have all of the rest of the Amendments that affirm individual rights.

It would be an interesting intellectual excercise (one for which, regrettably, I have no time) to parse the First Amendment and associated decisions in a manner similar to that employed by Shantinik with regard to the Second Amendment. There would be some rather interesting results. ;\)

It has long been said that if the Second Amendment were to be interpreted in a manner similar to the First, ownership of fully automatic weapons would not only be a right but a responsibility.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#761441 - 11/13/03 10:41 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
from the guncite link provised by JKeene:

"This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution."

"...they existed prior to the Constitution". In otherwords Americans once had the right to bear arms but probably lost it as a result of armed insurrection against and rejection of British rule. Shantinik is therefore right in his can opener analogy- unless the can opener can be linked to its utilization in an armed state militia there is no specific constitutional right of ownership.

Interesting that Canadians are likely to have a stronger claim to the right to bear arms under British Common Law than do Americans under the Constitution.
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#761442 - 11/13/03 10:48 AM Re: Au revoir les amis !
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Renauda,

I believe you misunderstand. The Constitution does not "create" any rights. It merely enumerates rights (and not necessarily all of them) that are to be free from infringement by government. The rights were understood to have always existed; Before the Constitution and after.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

What's Hot!!

Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
(ad) Piano Music Sale - Dover Publications
Piano Music Sale
Sheet Music Plus (125)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Request For The Pursuit Of Knowledge
by Louis Podesta
11/28/14 07:09 PM
Kawai K500 or Seiler ED126
by Mizar
11/28/14 07:03 PM
3 sensors per key vs 4?
by AnimistFvR
11/28/14 06:58 PM
My prediction, Your thought
by Banzai_Ed
11/28/14 05:29 PM
Replace side panels on MP7?
by acoxcae
11/28/14 05:27 PM
Forum Stats
77081 Members
42 Forums
159429 Topics
2341951 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
Gift Ideas for Music Lovers!
Find the Perfect Gift for the Music Lovers on your List!
Visit our online store today.

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission