Brad
P.S. Not knowing too much about your constitution/amendments, wasn't the part about "The right to bear arms" inclusive of other specific points, not the gross generalization you hear of?
Spare Parts
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Who here has a concealed carry permit
HONEYCUT
Member Since: May 07, 2003
entire network: 4,002 Posts
KitMaker Network: 648 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 08:10 PM UTC
Brent- Our gun restrictions here are more heavily enforced now after a couple of woeful massacres in the last few years. Seems you can still own a firearm, but has to be proven you are part of a gun club or hunt game etc. The law will come down on you like a tonne (!) of bricks if you have an unregistered firearm. You cannot own a handgun or semi-automatic at all, but then again I could be talking out of my hat... This is a rather alien subject to me...
Brad
P.S. Not knowing too much about your constitution/amendments, wasn't the part about "The right to bear arms" inclusive of other specific points, not the gross generalization you hear of?
Brad
P.S. Not knowing too much about your constitution/amendments, wasn't the part about "The right to bear arms" inclusive of other specific points, not the gross generalization you hear of?
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:47 PM UTC
"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
A lot of people use the "well regulated Militia" phrase to try and exclude individuals from owning firearms. However, Section 10 of the United States Code clearly defines the militia as "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States."
So that dog won't hunt...
Another point: the amendment does not read "therefore, the right of the people etc" it reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is a difference.
Shaun
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
A lot of people use the "well regulated Militia" phrase to try and exclude individuals from owning firearms. However, Section 10 of the United States Code clearly defines the militia as "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States."
So that dog won't hunt...
Another point: the amendment does not read "therefore, the right of the people etc" it reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is a difference.
Shaun
Braystaff
Member Since: August 24, 2005
entire network: 154 Posts
KitMaker Network: 69 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:03 AM UTC
Wow this is interesting stuff. You folks over in states live in a different world!
I’m a big military and gun enthusiast and the closest I can get to owning a weapon is a 6mm gas or electric airsoft weapon – and the UK government are doing their up most ban the sale of what is classed as a “toy”. Unbelievable stupid country that I live in
I’m a big military and gun enthusiast and the closest I can get to owning a weapon is a 6mm gas or electric airsoft weapon – and the UK government are doing their up most ban the sale of what is classed as a “toy”. Unbelievable stupid country that I live in
HONEYCUT
Member Since: May 07, 2003
entire network: 4,002 Posts
KitMaker Network: 648 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 01:21 AM UTC
Shaun- Thanks for the explaination. But what does "being necessary to the security of a free state" mean exactly, and how does it apply to the individual? A 'militia' would surely involve more than an individual, so to carry a firearm today in the sense or guise of a militia would involve what, exactly?
Brad
Brad
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 01:54 AM UTC
Bradley,
The United States Code, which is the laws the Federal Government enacts, already states that every individual citizen over 17 and under 45 is a member of the militia. The amendment doesn't read “Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State” it simply says that a well regulated Militia is necessary. The first two clauses of the amendment are a statement of fact. So is the last clause.
The second amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It states that the right to own and carry weapons, however, belongs to the people.
Shaun
The United States Code, which is the laws the Federal Government enacts, already states that every individual citizen over 17 and under 45 is a member of the militia. The amendment doesn't read “Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State” it simply says that a well regulated Militia is necessary. The first two clauses of the amendment are a statement of fact. So is the last clause.
The second amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It states that the right to own and carry weapons, however, belongs to the people.
Shaun
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 06:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Shaun- Thanks for the explaination. But what does "being necessary to the security of a free state" mean exactly, and how does it apply to the individual? A 'militia' would surely involve more than an individual, so to carry a firearm today in the sense or guise of a militia would involve what, exactly?
Brad
That is the beauty of the US Constitution. It points you in a certain direction without being specific.
I tend to believe that at the time of it's signing, guns were necessary for hunting and survival. Also you have to remember about that period with taxation without representation and colonial rule. I believe that the framers were afraid at some point, that the Crown would seize all the guns in order to put down revolution and thus gain unchallenged power. Therefore they added the 2nd Amendment to prevent their newly formed government from doing the same.
Of course times have changed and society is no longer reliant on a gun for survival but the government is always looming to take them away. They are prevented by the genious and foresight of some intelligent individuals 229 years ago who scribbled a few words in ink on a piece of paper.
armorguy
Member Since: June 25, 2004
entire network: 269 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 21, 2005 - 08:29 AM UTC
Wow! This is part of why Armorama is awesome! I love that we have people from all different countries around the world chiming in on this issue.
I personally live in one of the few states in the US that does not allow CCW, which sucks. I'd like to move to a state that does, or get the laws in my state changed. If I ever get to a state that allows for CCW, I will get my permit. I probably would not even carry a gun very often. However, I will get it just to support the freedom to do so. I personally love knowing that if some huge army ever comes to invade the US, they've got another thing coming with the US having millions of armed citizens outside of the armed forces. We are a determined bunch and would fight to the end.
Another thought...just as many said before, I do think it's true that most criminals that use weapons possess them illegally. So, allowing private, law-abiding citizens to possess weapons is just giving the majority of us a way to potentially protect ourselves.
I personally live in one of the few states in the US that does not allow CCW, which sucks. I'd like to move to a state that does, or get the laws in my state changed. If I ever get to a state that allows for CCW, I will get my permit. I probably would not even carry a gun very often. However, I will get it just to support the freedom to do so. I personally love knowing that if some huge army ever comes to invade the US, they've got another thing coming with the US having millions of armed citizens outside of the armed forces. We are a determined bunch and would fight to the end.
Another thought...just as many said before, I do think it's true that most criminals that use weapons possess them illegally. So, allowing private, law-abiding citizens to possess weapons is just giving the majority of us a way to potentially protect ourselves.
Rockfall
#202
Member Since: December 19, 2004
entire network: 884 Posts
KitMaker Network: 278 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 21, 2005 - 09:48 AM UTC
Interesting stuff here....
The concept of owning a gun never mind carrying it concealed has never in my 31 years of life even entered my mind.
I can't even think of one person I know that owns a handgun or has even expressed a desire to do so.
I mean I know lots of guys who hunt and stuff but thats different.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 06:20 PM UTC
I'm all for gun ownership, but I don't see much point in carrying one as a civilian unless you are at best prepared to face manslaughter charges (from shooting a mugger) or at worst death (having your pistol taken off you and used on you). This one's good, though:
First, your country's flanked on two sides by ocean. Don't you think an invader would have to get past your air force, navy, and coast guard before you get a chance to use your 9-mm on him? If the US was invaded overland (from Mexico or Canada), the invader will spearhead his attacks with armour, aircraft, and tactical nukes. Good luck with that 9-mm.
Both of the most recent physical invasions of the US' borders (Pearl Harbour and 9/11) were successful. Handguns carried by civilians played no role, nor can a role be seen in the most likely scenarios.
Please own and carry firearms, since your constitution allows you to, but don't kid yourselves about their usefulness to your nation.
Quoted Text
Our right to keep and bear arms is one of the reasons no other country in thier right mind has ever invaded the US and won. Just imagine, millions of P.O.'d cilvilians waiting for your US invading butt to walk down the street and turn you into a walking gun club target! I'll be at the top of THAT list waiting for some offshore chowderhead to think he can take my country!
First, your country's flanked on two sides by ocean. Don't you think an invader would have to get past your air force, navy, and coast guard before you get a chance to use your 9-mm on him? If the US was invaded overland (from Mexico or Canada), the invader will spearhead his attacks with armour, aircraft, and tactical nukes. Good luck with that 9-mm.
Both of the most recent physical invasions of the US' borders (Pearl Harbour and 9/11) were successful. Handguns carried by civilians played no role, nor can a role be seen in the most likely scenarios.
Please own and carry firearms, since your constitution allows you to, but don't kid yourselves about their usefulness to your nation.
BroAbrams
Member Since: October 02, 2002
entire network: 1,546 Posts
KitMaker Network: 494 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 07:37 PM UTC
Well I think you are right about our countries location causing it to be hard for an invasion but I would point out that neither invasion you mention was successful because no foreign governments are in posession of the lands mentioned. And I would also point out that both were attacks and not invasions. The foreigners involved did not at any point have occupation forces on the ground. I don't kid myself that guns are the reason we are free from outside forces.
But I do believe that we are free because our own government fears an armed citizenry. And I gaurentee that I am not going to sit back and let a criminal harm my family or friends.
But I do believe that we are free because our own government fears an armed citizenry. And I gaurentee that I am not going to sit back and let a criminal harm my family or friends.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:53 PM UTC
Rob, in modern war, entry of hostile aircraft into one's territory IS an invasion. You don't need troops on the ground. That would be an occupation, and that's not what I'm talking about. If you can dominate an area for a fixed period of time and deny its use to an opponent through power projection, it's a success. My point being the same, though, that handguns aren't realistically a defence against a foreign hostile.
Don't you think the British are free? They have as many freedoms as Americans without their government fearing an armed insurrection.
I repeat, I love firearms and am an advocate of their possession by civilians. I just think that the original reasons for your constitutional right are now obsolete. You cannot take up your arms to realistically defend your nation against an invasion, and I'm sure the US armed forces are quite capable of putting down any civilian insurrection if it needed to. Sidearms won't make the slightest difference.
So my argument is only against the usual defence by most American gun owners (national defence, etc). Why not just say you like guns? I do.
Don't you think the British are free? They have as many freedoms as Americans without their government fearing an armed insurrection.
I repeat, I love firearms and am an advocate of their possession by civilians. I just think that the original reasons for your constitutional right are now obsolete. You cannot take up your arms to realistically defend your nation against an invasion, and I'm sure the US armed forces are quite capable of putting down any civilian insurrection if it needed to. Sidearms won't make the slightest difference.
So my argument is only against the usual defence by most American gun owners (national defence, etc). Why not just say you like guns? I do.
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 24, 2005 - 04:43 AM UTC
While I don't agree with your definition of invasion I do agree that gun ownership in the US is no deterent to foreign invasion. In my case it is really not even a deterent to home invasion. With so many little ones running around I have my guns stored in a locked container and a trigger lock on each gun. Plus the ammo is stored separately. I would need 5 minutes at least to get loaded. That would be good against riots and mobs but not so much against a direct attack
BroAbrams
Member Since: October 02, 2002
entire network: 1,546 Posts
KitMaker Network: 494 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 24, 2005 - 05:46 AM UTC
I don't have kids yet, but I have a touch pad gun safe mounted behind my night stand. I understand the kiddies might have prying eyes but I think that the safe and some good training might be enough to disuade them from trying to figure out the combination. If its unloaded it doesn't do a lot of good in home protection. However you might feel safe enough in your home that it isn't something that bothers you and thats okay. I don't, the neighborhood I live in is not one I want to be in for long. And the area I have to drive through to get to work literally can scare the hell out of me. I had to detour around an accident once and had a man sneak up and peak in my windows on me. But I felt a lot better knowing that pistol was close at hand should I need it.
If it makes you feel better to hear me say it, yes I like guns, but I feel you are not giving them enough credit for the freedoms an armed yet civilised population enjoys. I guess I will have to just agree to disagree because I do not live in Sri Lanka and don' know how it is there. If you are happy and secure in your life then who am I to argue against that.
If it makes you feel better to hear me say it, yes I like guns, but I feel you are not giving them enough credit for the freedoms an armed yet civilised population enjoys. I guess I will have to just agree to disagree because I do not live in Sri Lanka and don' know how it is there. If you are happy and secure in your life then who am I to argue against that.
armorguy
Member Since: June 25, 2004
entire network: 269 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 24, 2005 - 09:23 AM UTC
Spooky6, ShermiesRule, BroAbrams...
All good points. Very good debate and verbalization!
All good points. Very good debate and verbalization!
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 24, 2005 - 04:02 PM UTC
Rob, I am FOR gun ownership, NOT against it.
I just feel that beyond the psychological, a handgun may not be the best form of defence. Most fire-armed criminals are ready to use them. Are you? I don't know if you've ever killed anyone outside the military, but you'll find there's a bit of hesitation on the trigger which might be fatal. I have seen it first hand.
Don't mean to turn this into a war story fest, but we were house-clearing once when I was in the Army and I stepped through a doorway without checking the room properly. I was carrying a Hi-Power in a modified Weaver stance. A civilian stepped through a doorway on my blind (left) side with a cocked revolver. He was so close I could see the hammer was back. But he didn't shoot. My no 2 reached over me with his Mossberg pump and gave him one in the upper chest. He died because he wasn't ready.
Another one: was in a bar once when a customer pulled a small 9-mm on the bartender (dunno why). An off-duty soldier who was there (combat vet) took it off him, laid him flat with it, felt sorry for him and only shot him in the knee.
And if you shoot, better make sure that mugger's .38 is a real one and loaded. I believe you'll face manslaughter charges if not. A can of mace would be better.
There's a lot of crime in Sri Lanka (not as much as in the US, apparently) but I wouldn't feel safer with a pistol. Over here the police force is probably more incompetent and corrupt than in the US, and can't really provide security anymore than in the US, but carrying a handgun about will double or triple my chance of getting shot. I believe cops will will go for whoever the gun-carrier is (here and in the US) regardless of crime.
I carry a heavy Burma teak table leg stashed under my car seat. Hope I never have to use it.
I just feel that beyond the psychological, a handgun may not be the best form of defence. Most fire-armed criminals are ready to use them. Are you? I don't know if you've ever killed anyone outside the military, but you'll find there's a bit of hesitation on the trigger which might be fatal. I have seen it first hand.
Don't mean to turn this into a war story fest, but we were house-clearing once when I was in the Army and I stepped through a doorway without checking the room properly. I was carrying a Hi-Power in a modified Weaver stance. A civilian stepped through a doorway on my blind (left) side with a cocked revolver. He was so close I could see the hammer was back. But he didn't shoot. My no 2 reached over me with his Mossberg pump and gave him one in the upper chest. He died because he wasn't ready.
Another one: was in a bar once when a customer pulled a small 9-mm on the bartender (dunno why). An off-duty soldier who was there (combat vet) took it off him, laid him flat with it, felt sorry for him and only shot him in the knee.
And if you shoot, better make sure that mugger's .38 is a real one and loaded. I believe you'll face manslaughter charges if not. A can of mace would be better.
There's a lot of crime in Sri Lanka (not as much as in the US, apparently) but I wouldn't feel safer with a pistol. Over here the police force is probably more incompetent and corrupt than in the US, and can't really provide security anymore than in the US, but carrying a handgun about will double or triple my chance of getting shot. I believe cops will will go for whoever the gun-carrier is (here and in the US) regardless of crime.
I carry a heavy Burma teak table leg stashed under my car seat. Hope I never have to use it.
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 24, 2005 - 04:24 PM UTC
It sounds to me both of you guys are saying the same thing but in different ways. Both are advocating safe and responsible ownership.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 24, 2005 - 04:54 PM UTC
Not quite, Alan. I'm for gun ownership (with regulations, just like automobiles), but I DON't agree that they are useful in personal defence.
Just to rattle you Yanks up a bit more :-) , I think the US should issue 'gunfighter licences' (like a driving licence) instead of gun permits for individual weapons. That way, you would have to pass a 'shooting test' (like a driving test) in theory and practice, and take a medical, BG check, etc, after which you'd be authorised to own and use any number of firearms as long as they fall into your category. Just as (at least in SL) a regular driver's licence doesn't let him drive heavy trucks and machinery, a regular 'gunfighter licence' won't let you use auto rifles and crew-served weapons.
Just to rattle you Yanks up a bit more :-) , I think the US should issue 'gunfighter licences' (like a driving licence) instead of gun permits for individual weapons. That way, you would have to pass a 'shooting test' (like a driving test) in theory and practice, and take a medical, BG check, etc, after which you'd be authorised to own and use any number of firearms as long as they fall into your category. Just as (at least in SL) a regular driver's licence doesn't let him drive heavy trucks and machinery, a regular 'gunfighter licence' won't let you use auto rifles and crew-served weapons.
HONEYCUT
Member Since: May 07, 2003
entire network: 4,002 Posts
KitMaker Network: 648 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 01:39 AM UTC
Guess my cricket bat is gonna be the best thing against 'home invasion'... :-)
Oh, that and the use of the blunt side of my Gurkha kukri dagger... Clunk!
Brad
Oh, that and the use of the blunt side of my Gurkha kukri dagger... Clunk!
Brad
peacekeeper
Member Since: May 07, 2004
entire network: 715 Posts
KitMaker Network: 401 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 06:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
what happens if someone breaks into your house or threatens you on the street? Are you required to announce the fact that you are armed and will protect yourself if so required?
Dave
Dave
Here in Texas, I was told by the local PD, Sheriff and State Troopers, if he has 1 foot inside your door, he is pretty much fair game if you're a female (imminent fear of your life), for a male, a resonable belief that they are armed is enough. And no you don't have to announce the fact that you are armed....it is generally assumed around here that you are. :-)
They also said to keep shooting until the intruder(s) are dead and/or your weapon is empty. The emphasis on the dead part is because if they are only wounded, they will sue you.
A lot easier to purchase them here than back home though..no such thing as a FAC, and a pistol is NOT a restricted weapon. Haven't figured out what would be...maybe an M2 .50cal?
Dave
BroAbrams
Member Since: October 02, 2002
entire network: 1,546 Posts
KitMaker Network: 494 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 07:24 AM UTC
Dave you can get an M2 as well as any other automatic weapon older than 25 years under the antiques clause of federal law. It does require a class 3 firearms license for each weapon which means an FBI back ground check and the approval of the county sherrif.
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 07:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Textwhat happens if someone breaks into your house or threatens you on the street? Are you required to announce the fact that you are armed and will protect yourself if so required?
Dave
Dave
Here in Texas, I was told by the local PD, Sheriff and State Troopers, if he has 1 foot inside your door, he is pretty much fair game if you're a female (imminent fear of your life), for a male, a resonable belief that they are armed is enough. And no you don't have to announce the fact that you are armed....it is generally assumed around here that you are. :-)
They also said to keep shooting until the intruder(s) are dead and/or your weapon is empty. The emphasis on the dead part is because if they are only wounded, they will sue you.
A lot easier to purchase them here than back home though..no such thing as a FAC, and a pistol is NOT a restricted weapon. Haven't figured out what would be...maybe an M2 .50cal?
Dave
Here in the US the amount of lethal force allowed is determined by state law. It is referred to as the Castle Doctrine. Some states say that you are only allowed to use deadly force if there is imminent danger. Others say you may use equivilent dealy forces. Recently more states have started to allow more use of deadly force whether danger is imminent or not. If an unauthorized intruder enters your "castle" (home, car, place of business) he may be met with deadly force.
AJLaFleche
Member Since: May 05, 2002
entire network: 8,074 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,574 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 08:11 AM UTC
On the use of a gun to prevent crime.
A couple years ago, an off duty cop was accosted by a mugger. He tried to draw him down and was severely wounded and permanenetly disabled form his job. This was a (presumably) well trained and qualified to use his weapon professional. How is a civilian, whose only experience is clay pigeons and paper targets going to fare in the same situation?
For the record, a Class A large capacity license to carry sits in my wallet.
Someone above commented on an unloaded gun.
Our reenactment unit's safety officer has these two rules:
1.) Every gun is loaded.
2.) When you know your gun is unloaded, refer to rule #1.
Someone else noted the "rights of a criminal" being an oxymoron. A convicted criminal looses many rights, who he lives with, where he lives, when he gets up, what he eats, what he can wear, etc. while he's incarcerated. Depending on the crime, he/she may loose the right to own a weapon, to hold certain jobs, where he can live and to vote even after release. A person accused of a crime does not loose any rights until he/she has been convicted. We work under a presumption of innocence which does not go away with an arrest or even an indictment by a grand jury. Even upon conviction, a person has the right to appeal if there were improprieties (or possible improprieties) or if new eveidence is uncovered. In any number of cases, more sophisticated DNA analysis has shown a convicted person could not have committed the crime for which they were convicted.
A couple years ago, an off duty cop was accosted by a mugger. He tried to draw him down and was severely wounded and permanenetly disabled form his job. This was a (presumably) well trained and qualified to use his weapon professional. How is a civilian, whose only experience is clay pigeons and paper targets going to fare in the same situation?
For the record, a Class A large capacity license to carry sits in my wallet.
Someone above commented on an unloaded gun.
Our reenactment unit's safety officer has these two rules:
1.) Every gun is loaded.
2.) When you know your gun is unloaded, refer to rule #1.
Someone else noted the "rights of a criminal" being an oxymoron. A convicted criminal looses many rights, who he lives with, where he lives, when he gets up, what he eats, what he can wear, etc. while he's incarcerated. Depending on the crime, he/she may loose the right to own a weapon, to hold certain jobs, where he can live and to vote even after release. A person accused of a crime does not loose any rights until he/she has been convicted. We work under a presumption of innocence which does not go away with an arrest or even an indictment by a grand jury. Even upon conviction, a person has the right to appeal if there were improprieties (or possible improprieties) or if new eveidence is uncovered. In any number of cases, more sophisticated DNA analysis has shown a convicted person could not have committed the crime for which they were convicted.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.