Letter to Editor: Ban private ownership of handguns

[rudiewhitebwoy]

Google Joshua Guillet of Bellingham.

 

[amm5061]

3 are the most dangerous.

Oh that's cute. No wonder he wants everyone disarmed. Can't get shot for raping kids if no one has guns!

 

[JohnZ]

From the dictionary;

View attachment 254728

He's too lazy to look in the dictionary and too stupid to notice he's making the opposite argument to what he wants.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

"Most gun control laws try to whittle away at the edges of the Second Amendment. This thinking is short-sighted and wrong. We must learn to embrace the Second Amendment. It gives Americans the right to bear arms; however, it does not state firearms, merely arms. We now have non-lethal electrical arms, Tasers."

Yeah, that's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind in 1789 when the Second Amendment went before Congress and 1791 when it was finally ratified--Tasers. That interpretation makes total sense. The founding fathers basically said: "When we said arms, we didn't mean the what arms means now, we mean the thing that will be invented 180 years from now."

 

[namedpipes]

"Most gun control laws try to whittle away at the edges of the Second Amendment. This thinking is short-sighted and wrong. We must learn to embrace the Second Amendment. It gives Americans the right to bear arms; however, it does not state firearms, merely arms. We now have non-lethal electrical arms, Tasers."

Yeah, that's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind in 1789 when the Second Amendment went before Congress and 1791 when it was finally ratified--Tasers. That interpretation makes total sense. The founding fathers basically said: "When we said arms, we didn't mean the what arms means now, we mean the thing that will be invented 180 years from now."

At the time 2A was drafted, the wheelock was giving way to the flintlock. The flintlock eventually gave way to percussion caps and those gave way to cartridges and will eventually give way to phasers (set to stun) and those will give way to telepathically guided lasers mounted on a personal drone that hovers near you.

Arms are arms. It doesn't matter what shape they are. 2A is not discriminatory.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

At the time 2A was drafted, the wheelock was giving way to the flintlock. The flintlock eventually gave way to percussion caps and those gave way to cartridges and will eventually give way to phasers (set to stun) and those will give way to telepathically guided lasers mounted on a personal drone that hovers near you.

Arms are arms. It doesn't matter what shape they are. 2A is not discriminatory.

View attachment 254923

View attachment 254924

View attachment 254925

View attachment 254926

View attachment 254927

View attachment 254928

True, but until you got to the sharks, um, I mean drones with lasers, the commonality is gun powder and projectiles. That's what the founding fathers meant. Not the "non-lethal electrical arms" the letter recommends.

 

[67ray]

True, but until you got to the sharks, um, I mean drones with lasers, the commonality is gun powder and projectiles. That's what the founding fathers meant. Not the "non-lethal electrical arms" the letter recommends.

That is the originalist method of interpreting constitutional law, the one that Scalia subscribed to.

 

[AHM]

I forget, are level 3's the 18yo boy with a 17yo girlfriend or the ones with the 13 yo half eaten boys and girls buried in the back yard?

3 are the most dangerous.

I.e., the drunks spotted taking a leak in an alley.

 

[SpaceCritter]

3 are the most dangerous.

Levels of sex offenders

 

[308rifleman]

I think it must be his live at home adult son. Can't blame a dad for not wanting his kid shot some day. Better if he only gets tazed.

That explains one anti-constitution moonbat who would prefer to have the people completely disarmed. Not sure what logic the rest of them are applying though.

The so-called "logic" was applied in the UK decades ago. Now, the only thing that the UKs subjects have to worry about is being carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey due to the escalating knife crime or having one's face ended up looking like a science fiction monster after all of the acid attacks happening in that gun-free utopia that the liberals here in the United States are always comparing us to.

 

[308rifleman]

I guess he doesn't realize a taser isn't going to be much help when three guys are coming at you in an alleyway. But it's for the children! Even though they tell us all mass shootings us ARs, and that's why they need to be banned.

He should also be liable when your home defense rifle (since you now are using rifles to defend your home, as he advocates) launches a .308 projectile three houses down and hurts someone.

Our company contracted with a third party to do some work. One of the engineers was born and raised in Mexico. He said that Mexican gun laws are so strict that most people buy on the black market. They buy 9mm and .45 handguns that are strictly illegal for civilians under Mexican laws. Very few people comply with registration laws for firearms. The government does not care about their safety and in return, they do not care about the Mexican government's bull**it laws.

 

[Varmint]

There is no, "ban" on machine guns, just a bunch of hoops and dollars to jump through.

Post 1986 machine guns are definitely banned.

 

[Lip]

Having lost a child to suicide, with a hand gun. I blame the doctor not the weapon. Liberals must be stopped. The gun is a tool that is all.

 

[AHM]

... Mexican gun laws are so strict that most people buy on the black market. ... Very few people comply with registration laws for firearms. The government does not care about their safety and in return, they do not care about the Mexican government's bull**it laws.

^This.

And note that it's just a special instance of a general case:

10-15 years ago a correspondent of mine who spent much time living in Mexico
commented that everyone down there believes to the core of their being
that anyone who obeys any law whatsoever just because "it's a law" -
when there is no chance of getting caught in the transgression -
is a fool; a sucker of the first order.

There are two implications for us:

1. Anyone who tells you that crimaliens will magically start respecting (our) laws the microsecond they cross the border is insulting your intelligence.
2. The same corrosive disrespect for law and order happens in the US when our overlords pass laws which the people don't respect. (Our respect for gun laws is just a leading indicator).

The sooner that everyone internalizes these facts of life,
the better decisions that we'll make in government.

 

[ridleyman]

So, is it time to bury our guns or dig them up?

 

[namedpipes]

So, is it time to bury our guns or dig them up?

Yes

 

[ridleyman]

And the guy drives a Rav4? Book 'im, Danno!

 

[namedpipes]

True, but until you got to the sharks, um, I mean drones with lasers, the commonality is gun powder and projectiles. That's what the founding fathers meant. Not the "non-lethal electrical arms" the letter recommends.

I doubt they intended to limit "arms" to mean gunpowder / projectile weapons. Bow and arrow were in pretty common use back then, too.

Not so long ago most of the news was about the "arms race" meaning nukes. So our cultural popularly knows atom bombs as "arms". I see no reason in law that we can't tote a suitcase nuke around with us, just in case.

OK, not really serious on the last point, but whatever their shape: weapons suitable for hunting, defense or offense are what they had in mind, never mind whether the energy is derived by pulling a string, exploding a powder charge or accelerating electrons through a kryptonite coil.

 

[Shark_Cage]

And the guy drives a Rav4? Book 'im, Danno!

I would have thought he’d be more the “Free Candy” van type

 

[AHM]

So, is it time to bury our guns or dig them up?

Yes

Spoiler: If you bury them...

Spoiler: ...make sure that no one else can find them

I doubt they intended to limit "arms" to mean gunpowder / projectile weapons. Bow and arrow were in pretty common use back then, too.

Not so long ago most of the news was about the "arms race" meaning nukes. So our cultural popularly knows atom bombs as "arms". I see no reason in law that we can't tote a suitcase nuke around with us, just in case.

OK, not really serious on the last point, ...

Hopefully only because we live in a post-Heller world?

... but whatever their shape: weapons suitable for hunting, defense or offense are what they had in mind, never mind whether the energy is derived by pulling a string, ...

D.O. Guerrero approves of your doctrine.

 

[namedpipes]

D.O. Guerrero approves of your doctrine.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your stewardess speaking... We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused, this is due to periodic air pockets we encountered, there's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight... By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

I doubt they intended to limit "arms" to mean gunpowder / projectile weapons. Bow and arrow were in pretty common use back then, too.

Not so long ago most of the news was about the "arms race" meaning nukes. So our cultural popularly knows atom bombs as "arms". I see no reason in law that we can't tote a suitcase nuke around with us, just in case.

OK, not really serious on the last point, but whatever their shape: weapons suitable for hunting, defense or offense are what they had in mind, never mind whether the energy is derived by pulling a string, exploding a powder charge or accelerating electrons through a kryptonite coil.

I'm sure "arms" in the original context was to specific any and all lethal handheld weapons up to firearms, thus the benchmark for what is legal would have been firearms, with everything under included. They weren't as silly as we are now to allow firearms and, say, prohibit crossbows. It was considered the public's right to equal defense, just in case America started turning towards the type of tyranny they just defeated with England or if any other nation wanted to step up to the plate.

Whether or not "arms" currently means all defensive weapons is subject to debate. I mean, you can say you "arm" yourself with a stun gun, but our founding fathers were not interesting in extreme short range temporary disablement when going against muskets and cannons. I also don't think they envisioned indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction either while penning 2A. No one in the era would have questioned a sword or edged weapon legality, so that leaves the firearms benchmark as being the subject of 2A rights. The war was over, and conscripted and volunteer militia disbanded, but were still armed. 2A ensured they could keep them and be prepared for whatever.

This all changed, of course, the once young idealistic founding fathers turned into big government and militia was replaced by an expanded formal army. I suppose that's where the main question of "why do you need a gun" comes from--the notion that 2A's origins no longer fit in today's context. People conveniently forget that this is every much a right as freedom of speech, and as such, a founding principle of this nation. Going against the Bill of Rights is basically conceding that we should have just gave up and remained a British Colony.

 

[namedpipes]

I'm sure "arms" in the original context was to specific any and all lethal handheld weapons up to firearms, thus the benchmark for what is legal would have been firearms, with everything under included. They weren't as silly as we are now to allow firearms and, say, prohibit crossbows. It was considered the public's right to equal defense, just in case America started turning towards the type of tyranny they just defeated with England or if any other nation wanted to step up to the plate.

Whether or not "arms" currently means all defensive weapons is subject to debate. I mean, you can say you "arm" yourself with a stun gun, but our founding fathers were not interesting in extreme short range temporary disablement when going against muskets and cannons. I also don't think they envisioned indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction either while penning 2A. No one in the era would have questioned a sword or edged weapon legality, so that leaves the firearms benchmark as being the subject of 2A rights. The war was over, and conscripted and volunteer militia disbanded, but were still armed. 2A ensured they could keep them and be prepared for whatever.

This all changed, of course, the once young idealistic founding fathers turned into big government and militia was replaced by an expanded formal army. I suppose that's where the main question of "why do you need a gun" comes from--the notion that 2A's origins no longer fit in today's context. People conveniently forget that this is every much a right as freedom of speech, and as such, a founding principle of this nation. Going against the Bill of Rights is basically conceding that we should have just gave up and remained a British Colony.

Don't be silly, old chap. Pip pip, cheerios and all that rot.

 

[Beretta92FS]

Next they will claim that the "Arms" in the 2nd Amendment is referring to the body parts arms, e.g. a person has the right to keep their arms attached to their bodies and the government is restricted from chopping them off at will.

It makes sense right, you can use your arms to defend yourself!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The 2nd is an amendment of the second class. Imagine how the courts would rule if you had to pay $100 to publish, if your PTP (Permit To Publish) could be revoked to exercising your 5th amendment rights, or if state-level courts ruled the 1st applied only to technologies of the day.

 

[AHM]

The 2nd is an amendment of the second class. Imagine how the courts would rule if you had to pay $100 to publish, if your PTP (Permit To Publish) could be revoked to exercising your 5th amendment rights, or if state-level courts ruled the 1st applied only to technologies of the day.

Yahbut name another amendment besides the 2nd that can enforce itself with no government help.

 

[Darksideblues42]

I'm sure "arms" in the original context was to specific any and all lethal handheld weapons up to firearms, thus the benchmark for what is legal would have been firearms, with everything under included. They weren't as silly as we are now to allow firearms and, say, prohibit crossbows. It was considered the public's right to equal defense, just in case America started turning towards the type of tyranny they just defeated with England or if any other nation wanted to step up to the plate.

Whether or not "arms" currently means all defensive weapons is subject to debate. I mean, you can say you "arm" yourself with a stun gun, but our founding fathers were not interesting in extreme short range temporary disablement when going against muskets and cannons. I also don't think they envisioned indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction either while penning 2A. No one in the era would have questioned a sword or edged weapon legality, so that leaves the firearms benchmark as being the subject of 2A rights. The war was over, and conscripted and volunteer militia disbanded, but were still armed. 2A ensured they could keep them and be prepared for whatever.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on part of this.

If we need to understand the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we need look no further than Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Among the enumerated powers of Congress is the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. These letters allowed a private vessel, or private company of armed men to conduct belligerent acts on the seas and upon the land on behalf of the United States. To qualify for a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, the owner of the vessel had to describe the size and capacity of the vessel, the armament the vessel carried, the experience of the captain and officer crew, and the small arms of the crew. In the case of an armed company, the requirements were similar. The funder of the company had to define the arms of the company (including cannon or artillery) as well as the experience of the officers and men, and the small arms they carried.

If the framers of the Constitution didn't plan on the general public having arms on par with common military arms, how would these letters have worked?

 

[StevieP]

Dammit now I want a cannon.

 

[namedpipes]

Dammit now I want a cannon.

They're perfectly legal in MA, along with flame throwers. It's so refreshing to live in a state that doesn't infringe our rights to cannon or flame throwers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

They're perfectly legal in MA, along with flame throwers. It's so refreshing to live in a state that doesn't infringe our rights to cannon or flame throwers.

You still need a MA cannnoneer's license to fire one though. A friend has one - really cheesy laminated paper like the old style RI carry permits from the AG. He said the exam was "write down all steps in firing a cannon".