In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 196
Online now 210 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
They were for that in the past, but they have been against them recently.
How do the long term positions you attributed to the NRA jibe with their opposition to closing the gun show parking lot loophole?
That is your argument. I read through the fluff and found the core of what you're arguing. People should never have the right to resist and it should be for the courts to sort it out. Even if they've turned to kangaroo courts.
You believe the right to resist is trumped by the few who illegally use firearms against others. You would leave it all to the government in every circumstance since you would cut people off at the ankles when it comes to their ability to defend themselves.
The last time the Court looked at gun control was Heller, where they said guns in common use are protected. That reasoning was flawed, but should at least establish that the AR-15 is protected and CA's bans are unconstitutional. We can argue what a "Well-regulated militia" means, but whatever the intent was, the conclusion, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed," is pretty crystal clear to a fifth grader with basic reading comprehension.
Yes, you are trying to read the tea leaves about future actions and consequences. I find it funny that you speak for all Jews. Frankly, I'm not saying Jews alone should have the fundamental right to self defense. I'm arguing that all American citizens should have that right. Here in America, where that right is protected under the constitution. Not in Israel.
No one mentioned a kangaroo court until you did here. That is your strawman. We had discussed a mistake by cops in earlier posts. You believed that such mistakes could be resisted with a gun. I did not. I never claimed that people should never resist. In fact, I expressly gave an example in a post in which I would. You apparently cannot use facts and logic to argue points that I actually made. So, you make up strawman arguments for me that I never made.
Regarding Heller (2008), notice that it overruled long standing precedent. As I stated, the interpretation is not clear and the SCOTUS has gone both ways on the subject. You seem to want to take language out of context. One can easily argue (I believe it is the correct argument) that the right is in order to maintain a well regulated militia, as the language implies. If you cut off part of the sentence, you cannot properly interpret it.
If I remember correctly, the other was abortion. That is part of the reasoning behind our advesarial legal proceedings (many other courts in the world are not advesarial). THEORETICALLY, if you hear the best arguments of both sides, you should be able to determine the more worthy argument. In some cases, you listen to an argument and decide that if the argument given is the best argument for that side, that side does not have much merit.
AGAIN you ignore what I have written in the thread and instead you impute something opposite of what I have written as my position. I have expressly stated in a post that not all Jews agree on anything.
You seem to miss something. Not all self defense is justified. Not under our or any other legal system.
You remember correctly.
No shit I introduced the concept of kangaroo courts, or at least Kozinski did. That's the point of the discussion and the 2nd Amendment: what happens when courts break down?
I use plenty of facts and logic, they all just seem to go right over your head.
Acually, self defense is by definition justified. Claiming self defense to disguise murder is not.
Is this anything like the definition of "is?"
The specific examples were discussed were when a police officer serves a warrant on the wrong home or arrests someone that it turns out did not commit a crime. You believed that it was okay for those people to defend themselves, without any reference to a kangaroo court.
If you are using the legal definition, that is correct. However, you have not been using the legal definition up to now. You have been using the everyday English meaning, defending yourself. E.g., it is not legally self defense to shoot a police officer because he is arresting you, but you considered it self defense (that seems like the English definition, not the legal one). It is not legally self defense to shoot a police officer that serves a warrant on your home by mistake, but you called it self defense (English meaning, not legal). Accordingly, I thought you were not using it as a legal term of art. Now you seem to be switching over.
So should modern militias be limited to the weapons of the late 18th century? Single bullet guns? Are are rocket launchers and personal nuclear weapons ok?
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I am being serious. Where do you draw the line? Are rocket launchers ok with you? I think I might use a flame thrower against tyranny. What about you?
You may be serious, but this is not a serious question.
seriously, if there was government tryanny and you needed to fight the govt, would you want access to a rocket launcher? why limit yourself to guns?
The only person arguing about nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, grenades and flamethrowers is you, seriously.
Like I said - small arms are enough to mount an effective resistance.
However, I see little statistical proof that banning semi automatic guns will do anything but put better weapons in the hands of criminals that those that the public has.
What is lost in all of this political grandstanding is the need for better background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Calling things Assault Weapons and painting the picture of people running around with guns firing off rounds in full automatic makes for good political theater, but it does nothing for actual safety or establishing the reality of firearms available to the American public
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by deetj13 14 months ago
Is it still your position that the NRA supports better background checks (which would require outlawing the selling of guns amongst private citizens in the parking lots of gun shows) and/or the government's ability to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable? If that still is your position, how does that line up with what the NRA has been saying since Sandy Hook?
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that some of the folks claiming that they want to own their guns as a way to protect themselves from some type of tyrannical US Government don't actually believe that they would be able to fight off the military with handguns and assault rifles. What it comes down to is that people simply like to own guns. Some want those guns to hunt. Others want those guns as a way to protect themselves from civilian criminals.
It's pretty tough to use the 2nd Amendment to justify owning guns for hunting and home protection from civilian criminals, so they fall back on the government's tyranny as an argument...even though a lot of them have to realize that a fight between them and the military would be over before it even started.
This is absolutely correct. The laws being proposed are knee jerk political reactions by people who obviously have effectively zero understanding of firearms and are targeting law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
Somebody please explain how many bullet button equipped semi automatic rifles in CA have been used in violent crimes? Probably close to zero. How many registered semi auto rifles? Probably close to zero. Why? Because people who follow these laws are not out committing crimes. They are law abiding citizens exercising their civil rights and they are being targeted. This is exactly why we need the courts to sort it out rather than the politicians and the mob/majority.
And can somebody tell me how an ammo tax is going to avoid violent crime? Pure sin tax to punish citizens for exercise their civil rights.
What has the NRA been saying since Sandyhook?
For me, background checks are fine, registration and the host of laws proposed in California are not.
They've taken the position that they are pretty much opposed to any new laws and/or restrictions. They've blamed video game and movies for gun violence. They've come out against closing the gun show parking lot loophole.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. In some cases it is probably true, but it doesn't make the 2ndA less important.
Fighting oppressive government falls under the umbrella of the fundamental right to self defense. I don't see how that right in the defense of one's family and self is tough to justify (I dont' even argue hunting), or how the right to fight oppressive government is less relevant today than it was 200 years ago. All around the world we see the work of oppressive government and assume it will never happen here.
I can think of two former military who used to roam these boards who disagree with your point about fighting the military. Dorner, one man equipped with small arms, had the entire LAPD scared shitless. He took out what, three of them before they had to get him with a SWAT team? That's one man. Now try to put down large numbers of U.S. citizens and roll your tanks through American cities. It's going to be a lot easier if people don't have small arms than if they do.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports