Yank shoots Brit dead in Hua Hin

[MaiLuk]

>>Actually, it shouldn't be that hard to prove to courts that the Second Ammendment only covers rifles and shotguns, not pistols. <<

 

r u trying to open a can of worms here? :evil:

 

The second amendment says the people can bear "arms". A pistol was an arm then and now.

 

>>Of course, the anti-gun factions wants to ban everything, while the pro-gun side wants almost everything legal.

Nobody seems willing to compromise.<<

 

The problem with compromising with the anti-gun lobby is that before the ink is even dry on the compromise, they are out demanding more concessions claiming there is a loophole that has to be closed. For ex: A compromise was reached requiring a 3 day wait between the time you buy a gun at a dealership and the time the gun is delivered. Purpose was to have a cooling off period so someone who is angry will have time to calm down. The 3 day wait is not well thought out IMO because if someone such as a woman has a nutcase ex BF she will be dead before she gets her gun.

 

The compromise specifically did NOT require a 3 day wait if you bought a gun at a gun show (for you euro types, a gun show is where gun dealers travel with their inventory to a convention hall and display their goods. People from the local area then go to the gun show and possibly make a purchase). A 3 day wait to buy at a gun show would not work because the dealers came from 100s of miles away and a buyer would not want to travel to pick up his new gun, a buyer needed to receive the gun at the time of sale.

 

The gun control crowd immediately started ranting about the "gun show loophole" that allowed a purchase without a 3 day wait, and how we have to close the loophole or a calamity will result. It wasn't a loophole, it was part of the compromise. Fuck them no more compromises. It only results in more and more irrational gun control laws.

 

[MaiLuk]

>>If you could stand in the accused American's shoes right now, and turn back the clock, would you wish you had kept a lump of wood, and an electric shock zapper in your bedroom<<

 

Electric shock zappers scare me. Seems just as dangerous to the user as it is to the target.

 

If my or my family were in danger I would be rather unhappy to find that I was so careless about security that i only had a zapper and a lump of wood. I have no idea if the hua hin american was in danger or was the aggressor so can't answer for him.

 

What is wrong with arming yourself to cover the possibility that you might be the potential victim of one of these murders i'm always reading about? I have a firearm to try to prevent my death from happening violently and life insurance in case I buy it anyway. The two are common sense precautions.

[elef]

Amendment II

 

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.

 

 

So you're guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms if you're in the militia.

[MaiLuk]

Oh oh here we go :hubba:

 

A well regulated militia is necessary to a free state and therefore shall not be infringed.

 

Also, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

What I just said makes as much sense (or more sense) then the claim that the right to bear arms applies only to a militia.

 

Also, "militia" means what? The people dunnit? Or all adult males? So under your interpretation the people or all adult males have the right to bear arms. I'll check the definition of militia and get back to you.

[MaiLuk]

Wikipedia says there are five definitions one of which is:

 

The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, available to be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster. A similar common law provision, the posse comitatus, exists in jurisdictions with English judicial origin for law enforcement authority to conscript from the male population to assist with keeping the peace, law enforcement, etc..

 

Edit: here is the link to the article on militia:

militia

 

I don't consider the article as authority, just giving a link.

[elef]

Amendment VIII

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

 

3 much forgotten amendments, a better argument for keep and carry arms is in the 9th, the 8th is not upheld and can somebody inform GWB what the the 10th means. :evil:

[MaiLuk]

It was common for the american colonialists to keep many of the town's arms in an armory locked up. They would be distributed to the militia in an emergency. This enabled the Brits to sack a colonial city (don't remember which one) without a fight because the brits captured the armory. Anyway, this fact might help the anti-gun crowd with their argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean what it says.

 

However, just about every american home on the frontier had a weapon in it and so did many townspeople's homes. And when the US government was created there was widespread fear that it would become too powerful and take away the rights of citizens (which has in fact happened in some respects). A deal was reached that the government could not take away the arms of its citizens (hence the 2nd amendment). The idea was that a government afraid of its own citizens would behave.

 

So now we have this argument of what they meant when they wrote the 2nd amend. IMO, if you are not sure about the context of when the thing was written, then just look at the plain language of the amendment and apply common sense and common usage. Since the amend states in very unmistakable language that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" the anti-gun crowd loses their argument. You really have to go into a convoluted historical analysis to try to get around that language. Common usage of the word "people" and "arms" removes all ambiguity.

[MaiLuk]

Amendment VIII

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

 

3 much forgotten amendments, a better argument for keep and carry arms is in the 9th, the 8th is not upheld and can somebody inform GWB what the the 10th means. :evil:

 

 

Well if you stir everybody up about a global "war" on terror, I suppose you can get around any language and we all go along for the ride. :smirk:

 

[Flashermac]

<< ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. >>

 

 

That sums it up: "the right of the people". Doesn't say anything about having to belong to the militia. However, the intention was clearly limited to "personal weapons". The anti-gunners ask assinine question like "So why can't you own a cannon?" Or "Why can't you own a battleship?" The anti-gun side usually are their worst enemies because their "arguments" are so poorly thought out.

 

 

 

[MaiLuk]

And they don't comprehend the difference (there really isn't one) between an assault rifle and a rifle. So they pursue stupid prohibitions on assault rifles claiming they are more deadly than others.