my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Opinions on Conceal Carry Permits? (Page 7)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: Opinions on Conceal Carry Permits? Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-14-2007 07:34 PM                     Are you kidding? Lawyers go out of their way to make things unclear out of clear things. Most of what gets the law ugly is when judges try to make law from the bench rather than merely interpreting the law (their actual job). Normally when lawyers come into play are on things that are deliberately written vague...this is not the case with the Constitution...is was deliberately written clear. Normally when things get to the Supreme Court, lawyers are fishing to apply the Constitution in a sideways means of a "Because of This, That amendment applies" not so much of a frontal assault. In the case of the 2nd Amendment...where lawyers/judges can come in to play would be over say gun registration...can the government require you to register? Well the 2nd amendment is silent on that...all it says is that you have the right to have one and the government can't deny you that (unless you have been given due process for the loss of that right). One would have to look elsewhere to see about if registration is constitutional or not and hence the lawyers, interpretations and opinions. But to read the 2nd Amendment and not understand the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is to simply not understand English or the Constitution. It doesn't even limit the people to guns...the right to own arms is there without any restriction on the type. They could have said knives, muskets, bows and arrows...you name it but no they left them ALL available as a right of the people. Again, the framers of the Constitution just separated from England using warfare and one of the things that ticked the people off was quartering the military in their homes. The US Constitution is one of the most brilliant writings of all time, at least in my opinion. You may not like or agree with the words, but the words have specific meaning. What is there to disagree about? The words are the words and have no more or less meaning in them than their actual meaning. Again, there is nothing vague there. What could you possibly think that amendment says? Remember, it was such an important amendment that it is #2...only behind Free speach...heck it even beat out the privacy amendments. It was pretty darn important andfar reaching by design. Steve  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-14-2007 08:46 PM                        The whole vagueness comes from the way that sentence is worded. If the second half was a sentence unto itself, then there would be no argument. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's simple and direct. But when you add that first part, "A well regulated Militia being necessary...." it implies that the militia is what's referred to by the second part of the sentence. The whole argument is over what's really meant by the word "militia." If it means the general public, then why doesn't it say "A well-armed population" instead of "A well-regulated Militia?" The Constitution is not perfect, nor did the writers consider it to be perfect -- if they did, they wouldn't have made it possible to amend it.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-14-2007 09:22 PM                     For the same reason they didn't use We the Population...it is We the People. The Constitution defines the people's rights. The first part can be considered nothing more than a justification of the second part...and introduction. The first part could have said something as off the wall as: Being that the world needs to concern itself with global warming, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. The first part has zero binding on the second part. The First part is not a right but a preamble to the second part. And yes The Constitution has never claimed to be without flaws. And yes that is indeed whey it is changable...that is yet one of its many greatnesses. But in order to change any part that is perceived to be a flaw or no longer in the country's best interest, some procedures must be followed...difficult procedures, but procedures none-the-less. Heck, we have had two amendments over the consumption of alcohol alone! And that is one that will NEVER satisfy this country for everyone....some things seem to best not be handled constitutionally. Steve  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 11-15-2007 09:50 AM                     Hold on there, Chad ... I never said the "right to bare arms..." part of Amendment II should be removed. Congress can't get important stuff passed, let alone removing stuff. Besides I do agree that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws ... etc. So, I agree, it’s OK right the way it is, but I still think it is outdated for the ‘defense against the our own government’ concept. 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." I agree with Mike in that the wording is somewhat, well, strange - at least compared to today's manner of speech/writing. But, no matter *how* anyone writes anything, someone else can pick it apart. When I mentioned a "Red Dawn" type of take-over, I meant a situation where the US military had been defeated, and the citizens were fighting guerrilla style. How effective this is depends on how far one is willing to go. Comparing past battles is not always a indicator of what would happen today. Guerrilla fighting was effective at New Orleans, Korean and Vietnam because there were limits what the superior side could do. Guerrilla fighting was not effective during WW2. The Nazis had no limit, lining up every 10th man in a village and shooting him or wiping a town off the face of the earth. Guerrilla fighting is quite effective in Iraq because of the limits imposed on the armed forces. The guerrilla fighters have no limits. They have RPGs, grenades, explosives, weapons not allowed to the average person in the US, and don’t care about blowing up 20 of their own people, so long as they can get a one US guy. So I still feel if a foreign country tried to take over the US, the citizens would lose. Wow, we’re a ways away from the original point of this topic, carry permits! Just so I can start a fresh argument, I feel anyone who wants a weapon should be required to pass a safety course. It’s a safety issue, not a registration issue.  |  IP: Logged Chad Souder Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 962 From: Waterloo, IA, USA Registered: Feb 2000 posted 11-15-2007 10:36 AM                     quote: Mike Blakesley it implies that the militia is what's referred to by the second part of the sentence Yes, it certainly does, but I think the problem is many people's definition of the word militia. A big, big issue with modern constitutional interpretation is that definitions of certain words change over the years. You have to do some research to find what the original authors meant. One example is "liberty". A dictionary search now will tell you it means pretty much the same thing as freedom. Well, that changed. They already had the word freedom back then, so why use liberty? Liberty meant the freedom to do what is right . The definition has changed so that now when people see, "liberty and justice for all", they think it means freedom and justice. That's wrong. The same holds for militia . Militia meant an army of citizens rather than professional soldiers, usually called in a time of emergency. Many people see the same root word between it and military and assume it is the same, when it is clearly not. Mike and John - If we can agree on the definition of militia , I think we'll be a lot closer on agreeing on the modern validity of the second amendment in its entirety. Steve is right - the US Constitution is one of the most beautifully written documents in the history of man. That is why there has only been 15 amendments in 200+ years and some of those don't even belong. Reading it you will see that it is indeed to protect the people from the government. The second amendment emerged from a big debate between the founding fathers. Some wanted a free-standing professional army at all times. Others wanted to get rid of that army during peace-time. The compromise was the second amendment.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-15-2007 10:55 PM                     quote: John Walsh I feel anyone who wants a weapon should be required to pass a safety course. It’s a safety issue, not a registration issue. You have to have a license and pass a safety test before you can drive a car but, even if you factor for the number of cars on the road vs. the number of guns in the hands of private citizens, there are still five times more people killed in automobile accidents every year than die by gunfire. This includes all men, women and children who are shot. This also includes people killed by law enforcement in the line of duty. Furthermore, more children die in accidents in swimming pools every year than die from guns... by a factor of ten. But there are all kinds of ordinances and permits and safety regulations that you have to satisfy before you can install a swimming pool over a certain size. How do those rules prevent children from dying? No, they don't. They just make us feel better about it because we're trying to "do something". The "safety" argument is specious, at best. So, in short, if you want to pass more regulations about gun use and ownership than we already have, I want you to pass a law decreeing all swimming pools be torn down or filled with sand and capped with concrete.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-15-2007 11:24 PM                        The difference there is that some nutbar can't take a swimming pool into a school or a mall and kill a dozen people with it.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-16-2007 12:26 AM                     But he can speed through the school parking lot and run people down with his car or drown your kids in the school swimming pool. I don't know the statistics, off hand, but I can guess that there are nearly as many vehicular homicides in the U.S. as there are gun homicides. I'm sure we can look it up. There was a couple of nutjobs in Erie who stole a bunch of bowling balls from a bowling alley and took them to a highway overpass and dropped them on passing cars. A direct hit went through the windshield of the car, causing a multi-car collision and multiple deaths. Miraculously, the driver lived but she will be severely crippled and disfigured for life. Should bowling be otlawed? No, the truth of the matter is that guns are more visible... or is that audible? They make lots of noise and they scare soccer moms into thinking that their children are in danger. You know what? To a certain extent, this is true. Guns ARE dangerous things. But they are no more dangerous than many other things. We just pay attention to guns more.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-16-2007 12:39 AM                     quote: John Walsh Just so I can start a fresh argument, I feel anyone who wants a weapon should be required to pass a safety course. It’s a safety issue, not a registration issue. At least in terms of carry permits, most states which grant such permits require the applicant to take a class and pass a written exam on issues regarding self defense and use of deadly force. The applicant must also demonstrate in front of a qualified instructor they can safely handle and fire their weapon. Oklahoma has separate carry permit categories for revolvers and semi-auto handguns. As for other people, I kind of agree anyone wanting to purchase a gun of any kind should take safety courses. But I doubt if that sort of thing would ever be mandated. Most people who are serious about the subject pay serious money for all sorts of self defense and safety course; some even go farther and obtain CLEET certifications (even though that's overkill unless you intend to work as a security guard).  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.