When RKBA activists pooh-pooh the introductory clause of the second amendment as propositional rather than prescriptive, it very much matters how the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written. There are NO other propositional phrases in either document. Ergo, the "propositional" reasoning is flawed. Activists would have a much stronger case were other such clauses and phrases present.
Given that the authors of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not write in a time when semi-automatic/automatic weapons (like Uzis) or hand-guns existed (can you just imagine carrying either a musket or a dueling pistol in your jacket pocket?), the issue of their INTENT is vital in formulating reasonable limits on who owns "arms" and how they are used. Militias are no longer part of our system of defense, unless you consider the National Guard. As you pointed out in an earlier thread, they're armed and funded mostly by Federal monies, not state. Kinda funny that "states' rights" proponents aren't all over the "state" wording and disparity like maggots on meat.....but maybe the Civil War put paid to all that.
I wonder how many people really HAVE to defend themselves from marauders, or shoot wildlife because that wildlife threatens family holdings or it's the only way to put high-grade protein on the family table. My guess is very few, fewer by far than now currently own and bear "arms" of any kind. And in a urban/suburban setting with police supposedly within call, firearms are more often recipe for disaster than vital to either food or protection!
As far as your remark..... come on, Mark. How humorous is it going to be on a board where women are the predominant gender and many of those women are mothers who have grappled with issues like whether to bottle-feed or breast-feed? We would quite likely bite your head off (metaphorically) at the suggestion that one over the other shows a greater "love"! Regardless of how our children were nourished as infants, most of us cherish and love them deeply--and those children know it. Yeesh, you're usually a LOT more sensitive than that (which is why I find your postings both informative and civil, even when I strongly disagree with your POV).
You dispute my choice of wording to indicate the relationship between arms owners and their weapons. I put it to you that when there is so much violence in inner cities (look at the high-profile case of Jennifer Hudson's mother, brother, and nephew) in which guns were used to perpetrate horrible crimes against the innocent, there is something more than just "ownership", given the spirited defense of the RKBA, in that gun/gun owner dynamic. What verbs or adjectives would you use to characterize how you feel for an item capable of causing such terrible harm and havoc?
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Well, that....and, of course, when "Red Dawn" turns out to be true, anyone who was smart enough to own an Uzi or similar weapon will be able to be one of the resistance.
"Giving" a kid a gun is not the same as allowing a kid to fire one under direct adult supervision.
Hmmm...given that this type of headline is what I think we'd all expect to see in the former situation, perhaps it's not so accurate to say unequivocally that they're not the same.
Come now, Mark - you're not that thick, and I'm pretty sure you know I'm not, either.
The point of my post wasn't to attempt to suggest that two pretty clearly dissimilar things were in fact the same....only that, in one regard which I would suspect is, in retrospect, a VERY important one at least to the parents of the poor young boy in this incident, perhaps they are not quite as DISsimilar as a quick glance at a post such as yours might lead a logical-minded person to conclude.
Is the reason that all sensible and right-thinking parents such as ourselves would never dream of "giving" an Uzi to an eight year old primarily one of safety concerns - both for others and (primarily) for the boy himself? I think it is, and if so, then if we've just read a story about a "supervised" boy in a controlled environment, with all the proper safeguards in place, who wound up tragically being a victim of exactly the same sort of outcome for which we would disallow the weapon as an unrestricted "gift," then I'm pretty sure you understood what I meant when I suggested that perhaps the two had more in common than your post might lead a casual observer to conclude.
Pages
When RKBA activists pooh-pooh the introductory clause of the second amendment as propositional rather than prescriptive, it very much matters how the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written. There are NO other propositional phrases in either document. Ergo, the "propositional" reasoning is flawed. Activists would have a much stronger case were other such clauses and phrases present.
Given that the authors of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not write in a time when semi-automatic/automatic weapons (like Uzis) or hand-guns existed (can you just imagine carrying either a musket or a dueling pistol in your jacket pocket?), the issue of their INTENT is vital in formulating reasonable limits on who owns "arms" and how they are used. Militias are no longer part of our system of defense, unless you consider the National Guard. As you pointed out in an earlier thread, they're armed and funded mostly by Federal monies, not state. Kinda funny that "states' rights" proponents aren't all over the "state" wording and disparity like maggots on meat.....but maybe the Civil War put paid to all that.
I wonder how many people really HAVE to defend themselves from marauders, or shoot wildlife because that wildlife threatens family holdings or it's the only way to put high-grade protein on the family table. My guess is very few, fewer by far than now currently own and bear "arms" of any kind. And in a urban/suburban setting with police supposedly within call, firearms are more often recipe for disaster than vital to either food or protection!
As far as your remark..... come on, Mark. How humorous is it going to be on a board where women are the predominant gender and many of those women are mothers who have grappled with issues like whether to bottle-feed or breast-feed? We would quite likely bite your head off (metaphorically) at the suggestion that one over the other shows a greater "love"! Regardless of how our children were nourished as infants, most of us cherish and love them deeply--and those children know it. Yeesh, you're usually a LOT more sensitive than that (which is why I find your postings both informative and civil, even when I strongly disagree with your POV).
You dispute my choice of wording to indicate the relationship between arms owners and their weapons. I put it to you that when there is so much violence in inner cities (look at the high-profile case of Jennifer Hudson's mother, brother, and nephew) in which guns were used to perpetrate horrible crimes against the innocent, there is something more than just "ownership", given the spirited defense of the RKBA, in that gun/gun owner dynamic. What verbs or adjectives would you use to characterize how you feel for an item capable of causing such terrible harm and havoc?
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
It's not prescriptive.
McCain LOST???
McCain LOST???
Hmmm...given that this type of headline is what I think we'd all expect to see in the former situation, perhaps it's not so accurate to say unequivocally that they're not the same.
McCain LOST???
Like your sign.
Objectively and grammatically speaking they aren't the same.
Come now, Mark - you're not that thick, and I'm pretty sure you know I'm not, either.
The point of my post wasn't to attempt to suggest that two pretty clearly dissimilar things were in fact the same....only that, in one regard which I would suspect is, in retrospect, a VERY important one at least to the parents of the poor young boy in this incident, perhaps they are not quite as DISsimilar as a quick glance at a post such as yours might lead a logical-minded person to conclude.
Is the reason that all sensible and right-thinking parents such as ourselves would never dream of "giving" an Uzi to an eight year old primarily one of safety concerns - both for others and (primarily) for the boy himself? I think it is, and if so, then if we've just read a story about a "supervised" boy in a controlled environment, with all the proper safeguards in place, who wound up tragically being a victim of exactly the same sort of outcome for which we would disallow the weapon as an unrestricted "gift," then I'm pretty sure you understood what I meant when I suggested that perhaps the two had more in common than your post might lead a casual observer to conclude.
McCain LOST???
No really new information, though it appears that he may have been firing the Uzi machine pistol rather than the subgun I presumed was being fired.
Pages