Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Au revoir les amis !

From every "the" and "ye" to every phrase and line to every stanza: a lie.

If I reasoned the way you just did, I'd come to the conclusion that women couldn't own guns.

That's all very nice but there is nothing in this language that precludes an individual from using his constitutionally protected ownership of firearms for the purposes of self-defense. Nor is there any such language in the Costitution which, in any case, would be disinterested in the right to self-defense per se, it being pretty well understood that a person should have such a right free of interference from the government. That is the way it must be at least until the government decides to take on the responsibility for our personal security, which it has not and, until a police state is established, can not.

You are correct that nothing in the Constitution precludes anyone from using surplus nuclear weapons against their neighbor's cat. Only that the Constitution doesn't protect this person against the government outlawing their use (for other than militia-related perhaps, or even their possession (for other than militia-related purposes), in the context of the Second Amendment. The NRA attempted to try this one in the Supreme Court in 1981, with both Burger and Rehnquist holding against them, and they haven't dared go near the Court since.

Burger's opinions on the issue are already well-known:

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

As Burger notes, the federal government has no more need to grant the right to bear hunting rifles than it does to regulate the use of fishing tackle. But there is no federal Constitution reason why they couldn't take it away.

Some of those fishing lures, though, can be absolutely deadly in the wrong hands.

Nor does it preclude me from using my hunting rifle to defend my home. If the government wants to try and make a law explicitly proscribing self-defense (the Constitution already will not allow them to proscribe gun ownership) they can just give it a try.

Well if any animal was more deserving...

gryphon, on that one, I have to agree with you...

Lock & Load!

Originally posted by shantinik:
nothing in the Constitution precludes anyone from using surplus nuclear weapons against their neighbor's cat.

I think the framers of the Constitution assumed that future generations would be able to apply common sense to their logic.

Common sense??? If that was so plentiful, why would mass migration to the new world be so necessary - - let alone a new constitution?

Who said it was plentiful?

It simply prevailed.

Original intent.

You know, one can become so convuluted in their "intelligent" arguments, that cats suddenly begin to bark.

Face it, Shant, the Framers understood property rights, yes, but the right to self defense was considered God given, and not even within the provence of government. Self defense was a well accepted commodity long before the Magna Carta was even written.

In fact, the use of weapons was so prevalent during the 1700s, that firearms were routinely used to assuage breaches of honor. Not to mention sharp cold steel, if guns were eschewed by the challenged party.

Seems like we sometimes aren't near as civilized as we think we are. An armed society is most definitely a polite society.

I once had a Maine Coon cat named Nelson who would fetch beer bottle caps as well as any Retiever.

C'mon Jolly you said it was all about private property and even I conceded the point. Why now switch to self defence- that's Larry's argument or excuse.

I actually view gun ownership not merely as a Constitutional issue but as a basic human right. Property rights are, indeed, inextricably intertwined.

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.

Oops, don't tell me... health care is not on the agenda right now since we're talking guns and other weapons (let's be egalitarian about this; not every interest group or stakeholder uses guns as the preferred weapon of self defence- some may prefer knives or even WMD as Shantinik pointed out).

I realize it's a very serious issue so don't think I am poking fun. Good gracious, Larry wrote last evening how one municipal county (or whatever you call them) actually legislated that everyone had to have a handgun on the premises. I suggested a .454 Casull in that way not only the intruder would get taken out but so would my wall, my neighbours wall, my nosey neighbour and as Gryphon suggested, probably the neighbour's irksome cat.

But it's not about self defence it's all about private property. Next time I go to renew my house insurance I'll tell the bank "it's okay everything's covered, I have a policy and rider with Smith and Wesson."

No, you have the right to provide for your own health care just as you have the right to provide for your own defense.

Tell me Renauda, if you are accosted, attacked, injured or even killed, can you or your surviving family (if there are any) sue the police for failure to protect you? Because you can't here in the colonies. It's already been in court. Someone called 911 when their home was being broken into, but they were dead by the time police arrived. The family sued but lost because the police are not obligated to protect you.

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.

Gryphon:

No I cannot sue the police.

Nor do I feel that I need a gun to defend my home or my person when I am on the street alone. My wife also feels that way here in this country and "elsewhere" where perhaps packing a piece almost makes sense.

My home despite the surrounding "barbarianism" is quite safe.

I wish to keep it that way. There are enough, if not too many, weapons here that are solely designed to kill people. These are not for hunting game they are for hunting people.

I have many aboriginal friends who rely on hunting game to feed their families. Hunting in our country is their "right" 365 days per year on all crown land or private land with permission. I am not aboriginal and hunting is my privilege. The present gun laws threaten their right to hunt and I am therefore opposed to the present gun law. I could care less about my privilege.

Well you're perfectly safe in Canada. Your homocide rate is only 4.1, but here it's 5.6!

Never felt safer. In fact, even the hockey stick has been retired to the garage.

At least part of the reason why we who live in areas without restrictive gun laws can feel safer is that criminals acually make reasoned judgments with regard to risk assessment. You may not even actually own a gun but they don't know that and that has an impact on their activity.

I realize that you have limited the weapons you would like to see banned to semi-automatics (you included automatics as well which I found puzzling given that they are already very difficult to own legally). These weapons are no more lethal than the ones you would allow so that puzzsles me as well. However, the best weapons for self-defense are precisely those that have been designed to kill people or, at least, are not intended for hunting. A 12 gauge pump or even a hand gun makes a far better home defense weapon than a bolt action hunting rifle. Also, concealed carry can have little impact on crime if one is restricted to hunting rifles. That is, of course, unless you are willing to allow revolvers which would seem somewhat inconsistent as well.