Jayd1981
Regular Member
If the laws were followed there wouldn't be any criminals. I think we have established that criminals DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. And thus without the law being followed, it then has no effect on preventing criminal behavior.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns
- Thread starter Bill Starks
- Start date
If the laws were followed there wouldn't be any criminals. I think we have established that criminals DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. And thus without the law being followed, it then has no effect on preventing criminal behavior.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Excuse me, sir, but your statism is showing.
Yes, and laws against murder would prevent criminal homicide IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED. At least a law against murder is justifiable from a natural perspective, because it prohibits and punishes an act that actually harms persons or property - the reason for having government and law in the first place! Selling a person a tool does not harm persons or property.
Thundar
Regular Member
Breyer you are an idiot. The founding fathers decided that the Federal Government could never restrict arms. It was the sight of post civil war abuse of freedmen that prompted the 14th A where states were barred as well as the federal government.
Shame on you for being such a stupid oaf. Torpedoes? Really- torpedoes?
daddy4count
Regular Member
Seriously? I'm not even sure how to go about responding to that... how about SOCIETY decides? That has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years.
We're already on that slippery slope. Have been since the Constitution was penned.
We have to trust and adjust our government as needed over time. What is socially acceptable can and will change which is why our Constitution is such a powerful document. But to throw off the idea of any kind of control is as insane as complete control and just as damaging.
Should a person who has shown a propensity towards violent crime retain his or her right to brandish a dangerous weapon? Should we allow mentally deranged persons to carry firearms? Would it make you feel safer knowing that all of those gang bangers and drug dealers are LEGALLY armed?
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I personally would prefer that line drawn with law and regulation rather than bullet and blood.
Common sense should dictate who those "dangerous" individuals are.
Though I do see your point in that common sense and the US political scene are mutually exclusive.
- $.02
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Yes..."society" always has the best interests of its members at heart...I'm sure many a slave in the days of old Dixie would have agreed with you.
Newsflash, buddy: the "will" of "society" is controlled by those members who possess the $$$ and the means to control the dissemination of information.
Perhaps you are in the wrong place, then? This site is about reversing the slippery slopes of us losing our rights.
Trust the government? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I just can't stop laughing.
The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to an enumerated few. The Bill of Rights specifically prohibits the fed. gov. from violating a list of certain rights - not all-inclusive, mind you, but more of a "top 10." It, in fact, PREVENTS the legal enforcement of social whims if applied correctly.
No, he should be executed, or incarcerated until such time that he no longer poses a risk to us non-offenders out in society (for life, if necessary).
The dangerously mentally ill should be confined to institutions, not allowed to roam the streets, posing a risk to citizens. If a person is too mentally deranged to carry a firearm, should he really be out in society, with easy access to many other dangerous items and substances, like chainsaws, motor vehicles, gasoline, alcohol, poisons of various kinds, knives, etc., etc., etc.?
It certainly wouldn't make me feel less safe than knowing that they are illegally armed, regardless of the laws, but to be sure, any gangbangers who have been convicted of actual crimes against persons or property should be deported if they are aliens and incarcerated if they are not, again, long enough until there is no more danger. Drugs should be legalized, and members of "society" like you should be ashamed of yourselves for turning your backs on the Constitution and appointing to yourselves the right to decide what substances other citizens should be permitted to introduce to their bloodstreams and which they should not.
The two are not mutually-exclusive. There were plenty of very rigidly-enforced laws in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia...starting with gun control against identifiable groups that had been deemed by your beloved "society" to be "dangerous persons."
Common sense is no longer common, and I doubt that men like Jefferson, Madison, Samuel Adams, et al. would have considered you to possess a great deal of it.
daddy4count
Regular Member
ROFL, I do enjoy a good flame war!
You may find it strange, but I tend to agree with many of your points above... though I do wonder just how deportation and eternal incarceration stack up against the rest of the Constitution?
In theory, I like your ideas on how to deal with those "dangerous" elements of our society.
You missed a bit thinking that I am anti-Constitution... the basis for it is to allow us to make changes that fit our societal acceptances. You mentioned slavery, which we fixed as a country when society deemed it was no longer appropriate.
And while I agree that we as citizens should have the right to ingest what we want, believe in the gods we want, even support the form of government we want... I do not agree that anyone and everyone should be allowed to own a gun.
One beautiful part of the Constitution is it gives us both the right to not only pontificate our personal ideals and understandings, but to also disagree with each other in a public forum.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
*YAWN* (We really need an icon that depicts yawning)
I am sure the Founding Fathers would have allowed restrictions on firearms. I am sure there were a number of towns that either banned or restricted firearms. None off the top of my head.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Good post and thanks for the link that is what I want to "no" activist judges at all and judges who are supposed to be the relief for the people not the other arm of the law for "authorities".
Exactly.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
What MIB said,
Freedom true freedom is dangerious thats why so many are willing to give up their freedom for a little safety.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Certainly that may happen. However, if done to far into the final year the vacancy would be met with skepticism and perhaps a fillibuster or delayed vote. Only time will tell.
joeroket
Regular Member
If this were the case, which I wish it were, I wouldn't have to see this memorial to my dad every time I go to capital hill. The guy that did it was a dangerous offender from Ca. at the time. It does not matter if we allow them to have weapons or not, they will get one, period.
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2...-cop-slain-on-capitol-hill-25-years-ago-today
arentol
New member
I just want to point out that under normal circumstances nobody, not even police officers or military personnel, have the right to brandish a dangerous weapon. Every single state in the nation has specific laws against brandishing dangerous weapons. Perhaps you meant something else?
Last edited:
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Cite.
arentol
New member
gogodaws, I know that according to board rules we are supposed to cite laws we reference, but some things pass the cite requirements by being BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS. For instance, I do not have to cite the laws of all 50 states if I make the OH SO BOLD statement "Murder is illegal in all 50 states". Similarly I don't have to prove that all 50 states have drivers license requirements to operate a motor vehicle. I would only have to cite if mentioning specific details of specific licensing laws for specific states, like if I claimed it was legal for a 12-year-old to operate a motor vehicle on a family farm in Iowa. By the same token I do not have to prove that all states have laws against brandishing because it is a given. If you doubt me then please feel free to name the state where you would feel comfortable in your legal right to wave a dangerous weapon around in a menacing manner under normal circumstances. However, for fun, here is a cite of the Washington law , which I know for a fact you don't need cited to you at all unless you have an issue with recurring amnesia:
*Note: The law doesn't have to use the term brandishing to make brandishing illegal. In some states brandish is actually used in a law similar to the above one for WA so that clearly and directly makes "brandishing" illegal. However, brandish is a word with a common definition which one law or another in every state effectively covers to make brandishing illegal. For instance, the above WA aw does indeed clearly make it illegal to "Wave or flourish a weapon in a menacing manner", which is the definition of brandishing, and so brandishing is illegal in WA. I know people have argued this on these forums before, and I really don't want to get into it, but all arguments end up coming down to semantics. My argument is simple enough: "Go try it, but don't call me to come bail you out."
If you mean the police or military parts, I suppose that does require a little explanation. You may have noticed I specifically qualified the entire brandishing thing with the term "normal circumstances". My entire statement would be a pile of doggie droppings without that part. But with that part it makes perfect sense and is accurate. Basically all I am doing is saying that all circumstances under which it is legal for a police officer, soldier, or civilian to "Wave or flourish a weapon in a menacing manner" are, by definition, not normal circumstances.
Examples:
A civilian walking down a peaceful street (normal circumstances) pointing his firearm at random people for the fun of it = Illegal.
Same civilian waving his firearm menacingly at an alleged armed robber (not normal circumstances) = Legal.
A police officer walking down a peaceful street (normal circumstances) pointing his firearm at random people for the fun of it = Illegal.
Same officer waving his firearm menacingly at an alleged armed robber (not normal circumstances) = Legal.
etc...
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your request for a Cite just misses the point entirely. I was just pointing out daddy4count's mistake in terminology. He said "brandish" when he meant something more like "own", "possess", "carry", or perhaps "bear". Clearly none of us has a right to waive guns around in a menacing manner any old time we feel like it, but we do have the right to carry a firearm most of the time.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
So very true.
amlevin
Regular Member
You are overlooking some important facts. In most cases there exceptions for Police Officers while performing their duties.
Second, who is going to arrest an officer if he does "brandish" a firearm? They have to deal more with "Department Policy" rather than law when it comes to their drawing a firearm.
heresolong
Regular Member
Are you suggesting that deportation is not consistent with the Constitution? The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to determine the requirements
Therefore after 1808 Congress is authorized to prohibit the migration of person into the country. If they come in anyway what are the choices. Either deport them, incarcerate them eternally, or let them in contrary to the Constitutionally passed limits.
arentol
New member
As I already pointed out, any situation where those exceptions apply are not normal circumstances. For instance, they can brandish when reporting to a "shots fired" incident, which is not a normal circumstance. They technically can't brandish when giving a ticket to a jaywalker (though I am sure it happens on occasion, leading to your next point.....)
Very true. However, that doesn't make it legal, and I am sure a few officers have gotten nailed for this at some point. There are some departments out there that have true respect for the law and will nail their own officers if that is what is called for.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Bellingham police like to point guns at your head for walking down the street drinking a hot coffee and you just happen to be OC'ing.
Hammer
Regular Member
Why can't SCOTUS judges be disbarred for stupidity?
This Breyer.... what a bonehead!
He really should stick to ice cream and leave the law to someone who can interpret English. It doesn't seem hard to understand, but evidently, for some at least, must be misconstrued to fit their own ideology.
This Breyer.... what a bonehead!
He really should stick to ice cream and leave the law to someone who can interpret English. It doesn't seem hard to understand, but evidently, for some at least, must be misconstrued to fit their own ideology.
Last edited: