National Gun Ban "Reasonable"

This is a discussion on National Gun Ban "Reasonable" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Disarmament of the good leads to victory over the bad, eh? Interesting principle. Okay, let's take a U.N. force of, say, 10000 troops and completely ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45

Thread: National Gun Ban "Reasonable"

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,012
    Disarmament of the good leads to victory over the bad, eh? Interesting principle. Okay, let's take a U.N. force of, say, 10000 troops and completely disarm them prior to depositing them into the front lines of any of the world's three major war zones. For the subsequent five year period, a disinterested group of 100 monitors will appreciate the situation and compile reports of the actual results of the engagements. At the end of the five years, the forces and monitors will meet back at the nearest urban center. We'll review the reports from each of the surviving monitors, then make the judgement based on the actual, practical tally of wins vs. losses. Both of the surviving reports would be useful for one thing, IMO, and that's to appreciate how fluffy, pie-in-the-sky assumptions don't go very far at the point of a gun.

    Here's my take, based on what I've seen on the streets when the innocent are disarmed ...

    Elimination of guns from the hands of citizens might be reasonable, if and only if it were reasonable to expect that criminals would cease engaging in violent criminal action against citizens. I believe the assumption of a good result is unreasonable in the extreme, thus disarmament of innocents can never be a reasonable proposition.

    Mathematical probability can be a terrible taskmaster, when it's blindly ignored.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    Id say it is high time to call for the termination (firing) or resignation of the solicitor general.....
    Why? He merely reflects the federal government's view. If that view is wrong, that's not his problem, and he could lose his job if he lies and changes the government's position. He's done his job accurately. If you don't like the decision, than take it up with the message, not the mouthpiece.


    -B

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    I tried to find the actual Brief filed to read it but failed! there is no 2008 stuff on the doj website...anyone have a link to the actual document? News stories are notorious for misquoting things...
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array glock27mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    clinton township
    Posts
    2,170
    because of firearms this nation was born,what now beacause of firearms,
    here comes the second civil war?????
    (SHERIFF BUFORD T. JUSTICE) "what the hell is
    the world coming too"

    NRA LIFE MEMBER

    U.S. ARMY FT.SILL, OKLA.

  6. #20
    Member
    Array GBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    If they ban guns, I'd see riots in the streets over night.
    If New Orleans is any indication - the illegal confiscation of defensive firearms - riots will not happen.

    Though I do wonder about LEO's given the order to disarm the populace, will they disobey or simply say 'I've got my job to protect'?

  7. #21
    Member Array Con43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by GBS View Post
    If New Orleans is any indication - the illegal confiscation of defensive firearms - riots will not happen.

    Though I do wonder about LEO's given the order to disarm the populace, will they disobey or simply say 'I've got my job to protect'?
    They would obey in a nano second. No problem

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array mech1369dlw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    610
    "When the pry it from my COLD DEAD FINGERS"
    A person is justified in the use of deadly force, if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

  9. #23
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    The 2nd Amendment- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "Militia" is US, the people....."being necessary", is in case the Government gets out of hand....remember, this was written by men who, if their cause failed, would most likely have been hung as traitors. Also, the right to protect/defend yourself, predates the Constitution. Granted by God, if you will. Complacency and apathy have caused the left thinkers to take back a few of our liberties.....We must be as vocal, and as well spoken as those that 'don't get it'. The ACLU screams about 1st Amendment rights.....well, without the 2nd Amendment, you might as well throw out the other nine. Speaking of the 9th Amendment....look that one up. It says I believe, and I'm not a lawyer, that people have OTHER rights that are not listed in the Constitution. But, by not listing them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. There's one to talk about.
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  10. #24
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    I tried to find the actual Brief filed to read it but failed! there is no 2008 stuff on the doj website...anyone have a link to the actual document? News stories are notorious for misquoting things...
    I saw this on arfcom over the weekend, and actually found and read the brief. Naturally, I can't find it now, but I'll check my history when I get home. It's real, and it was every bit as two-tongued and weaseley as everyone is saying.

    Maybe the email flood actually worked and it got recalled.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by GBS View Post
    If New Orleans is any indication - the illegal confiscation of defensive firearms - riots will not happen.
    I think it will depend upon the cutural area. I personally believe that KY would be very different than NO.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    I dont believe that most folks today care one bit about other peoples rights. I have even heard elected officials say the people get their rights from the constitution. The news people never even questioned it.
    Most government folks that I have talked to believe that protecting the country means to protect the government. They believe they are the same thing.

    Michael

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Naturally, I can't find it now, but I'll check my history when I get home.
    Found it.

    http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/07...itedStates.pdf
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Found it.

    Thanks! I appreciate your search.

    I was right! I just completed reading it and I don't believe that the harsh reaction to it was deserved.

    The Brief's Argument as best as I can summarize:

    1. The 2nd amendment is an individual right

    2. The right apples to everyone- not just people in a "militia"

    3. They argue against a "categorical" test for arms. They argue the DC appeals ruling had a flaw because they used this simple test: Since handguns are "arms" they are protected by the amendment. They worry that machine guns too are "arms" and are protected. They want to reserve the ability to have a system for congress to legislate firearms regulations and judges to review those laws on a more individual basis.

    4. They argue that it would be more typical for the supreme court to remand the decision to lower courts for more research. This is a little more complicated than I can claim to understand, but I think its more a question of judicial procedure than outcome...probably not important enough for us to worry about.



    Please read this and other primary sources to help keep an accurate understanding of the discussion. News reports and quotes (from both sides) are almost guaranteed to be biased.


    :)
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Rights are granted by God.....The founding fathers just chose a few of the good ones and wrote them down. If WE were given the rights by Government, it would mean that THEY could just take them away...which they can't, but not through lack of trying. Remember WHO the 2nd was written to protect us against.
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    nutz4utwo, thanks for reading the actual brief.

    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    They worry that machine guns too are "arms" and are protected.
    Well, duuuuuhh! So maching guns are 'arms'? Is that why soldiers carry them? And we have the right to keep and bear these 'arms'? Ohhhhh noooooo!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Local Article on "Reasonable" Gun Laws
    By MP45Man in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 08:41 PM
  2. Chicago Lawmakers - "Call in the National Guard" (Merged)
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: April 27th, 2010, 10:41 PM
  3. "Reasonable Force"
    By Arkatect in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 08:33 AM
  4. Some Thoughts on"Reasonable" Restrictions
    By OPFOR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 19th, 2008, 02:20 PM