Ducati Monster Forum

Today is a happy day, America!  [thumbsup]

perchè?  prego dicaci.

 :) :) :)  [beer]

The guns thing? 

(I'm guessing not the stock market decline, the state burning up, or...).   Or maybe you're just drunk at zeitgeist?   ;D

Yes, we have a winner! Gun rights, Heller affirmed!  [thumbsup]

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.

ding!  I'm drunk at home, Dan.

2 of my favorite D-bag interpretations of this:

"The People" refers to the collective people, and the cops and military protect "The People" therefore this does not apply to individuals..

and

"bear Arms" is a military term. It's only used in a military context. Therefore this is really talking about state police and the National Guard.

 [roll]

finally after 200 years, the 2nd Amendment is more clear.
DC vs Heller Supreme Court ruling  [thumbsup]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Although I don't really like guns I don't have a problem with a decision to support the right of people to have them.
I'm neutral on this decision...I think the bad guys who shouldn't have guns will still get them, but this just makes it easier for regular folks to have them if they want them.  Don't really see how much will change.   [coffee]

Just remember, if you have to shoot someone in your home, make sure you put the body in the bedroom. If you shoot someone, in self defense of course, in your home, it's only considered "self defense" if the intruder is in your bedroom. If you shoot them anywhere else in the house, it can be considered murder.
I have a very close friend in the D.A.'s office, and they confirmed this. They stated a case where the victim was tried for murder because she shot an intruder in her home, in the living room. The courts said if the intruder was in her room, then it was obvious he was there intentionally to harm her, and self defense was justified.

Hmmm.... last time I checked, anyone who was wrongfully entering my home, anywhere in the home, was there for less than friendly intent, and therefore I would be using self defense.

Personally, I'd rather run a knife through 'em, from gut to gullet, so I could watch the look of "Oh sh*t, I shouldn't have come here!" in their eyes. Is that wrong? [evil] [laugh]

I wish things were this clear-cut, 'Belle. There's still a huge debate about interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and I'll diplomatically try to steer clear of those arguments on this forum.

I'm a gun owner, but I wouldn't dream of keeping it in the home for the purpose of self-defense. You're much better off calling the police and getting the hell out of the area. Even cops and others with extensive firearms and self-defense training sometimes (more frequently than you might expect) have their guns taken away from them by the very people the firearms are supposed to protect against. That's one of the reasons my shotgun stays locked up...only to come out for the occasional round of skeet shooting.

There's also the factor that a lot of people who keep guns around for self-defense end up shooting someone they know, or end up not handling the firearm properly and put a bullet into the wall. My dad (who was a cop for 30+ years) did this on more than one occasion, as did many of his coworkers. That's why I believe in keeping guns locked up, and have no problem with laws mandating gun safes and other effective safety measures. Keep the damn thing in a safe, not loaded and under your bed.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on whether an outright ban is effective. I generally have no issue with responsible gun ownership. But to me, responsible gun ownership does not include keeping a gun out and ready to shoot someone creeping down your hallway at night. There are far more effective ways to deal with that (a stout door and a snarling pit bull come to mind)  ;D

I whole heartedly agree with everything you've posted here.  I just don't see how being responsible with a gun has anything to do with the right to own one.  It's apples and oranges. 

There's certainly a constitutional (e.g. rights) issue at hand here, one which I mentioned I was avoiding :) The DMF is no place to start a holy war. But the court's ruling speaks explicitly about self-defense, which for me touches on responsible gun ownership which in turn inevitably leads to the rights discussion. Just as a car is a dangerous item that's even more dangerous in untrained or irresponsible hands, a gun is a dangerous item (probably less so than a car, from our experience :P) and is even more dangerous in untrained or irresponsible hands. But any attempts to to mandate training or licensing are construed by some as an infringements on rights. There's your slippery slope right there  ;D

I've also found it a bit odd that there aren't many folks out there who are consistent in their beliefs in other aspects of the Bill of Rights. A lot of First Amendment absolutists are definitely not absolutists in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. And I'd venture that the vast majority of Second Amendment absolutists (Libertarian-leaning folks excepted) don't believe at all in the First Amendment. Ditto that for the Fourth Amendment protections against search & seizure and the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. And our American form of politics-as-bloodsport doesn't help matters. Instead of sitting down as reasonable people trying to solve our common problems, things like this turn into a shouting match.

Oh, and let me add to my comments above the following:

Thanks goodness this isn't BARF...because this thread over there would have turned into a flame war.

I've always held a view from an historic stand point. One of human antiquity rather than politic.

It used to be that the biggest man would take whatEVER he wanted from everyone else.
Now any armed grandma can stay her ground against anyone else without having to train like a martial artist.  The need for finesse/skill has been replaced by technology.

On a basic individual level arms are the great equalizers. On a societal scale with large % of populous owning arms in the US, has afforded a comfort that is expressed quite clearly in even our architecture having vast frontal sections made of thin glass. Do you know how bizarre this is to people from other places?

What’s to keep anyone – even a child from walking right in with a simple stone in hand? “Reassured-destruction.”  Reganomics aside [puke], its clearly worked for generations.

Socially things have changed dramatically. Which leads to the problem DQ mentioned about being trained AT ALL! The technology needs to change again and so does the training. Common sense just isn’t common anymore.

+1

Eff you, effer.  And yo mama too.  You're wrong and stupid.  And ugly.  And slow.  Your penis is small and your back is hairy.  And you're wrong. 

Did I mention you're wrong?   

How's that for a flamin'...oh, and speaking of flamin', you are. 


[cheeky]

GAY  [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]

PRIDE. 

PARADE.

is this weekend.  [drink]

Yeah. The thumpy music should keep half the BARFers away.

See what happiness will get you?

What-ever. I want to dance now.  [moto]

The following is a post I made on the political board, after doing a little research.
 
"Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male  (Or female) between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know." taken from America's Secret Army by James Dunnigan http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200823224140.asp

So the Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment states, "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."

and

The Militia Act of 1792 states,  "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia",

and

The Dick Act of 1903 recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription.
 
Then every male in America that is a citizen or is planning to be a citizen has the right to bear arms. This would also include females.  (the Dick Act has since been amended to include them.) Unless the person is a convicted criminal or mentally unstable.
 
It does not get any clearer than that!

So all those people that say the right to bear arms only applies to the military or police are dead wrong!

Founding Fathers: 11tybillion  People trying to deny us our rights: 0

Actually no.  Are you over 45? Cause according to your "research," once you pass the age of 45, you are no longer a part of that militia.

Depends on the state. I know of a couple stories in Oregon where anyone breaking into the home and verbally warned to stay away in the process, but the intruder still enters anyway, you can shoot them on the spot. On more than one occasion the intruder was shot dead. No charges against the homeowner.

But I agree, there's probably some wiseguy attorney out there that will argue the intruder was non-threatening simply because he/she was not even in the same room.

Hog wash ... a man's home is his castle.

I'm curious what county your friend is a D.A. for because the law does not make any stipulations for self defense like you're suggesting.  You merely have to articulate a reasonable fear for your life in order to justify self defense.

I am very happy too...   [wine]

You and I, and any sensible person in the world, would agree with that. Unfortunately, there was a case in the area, that the court found the home owner guilty of murder. The reason they said it was murder, was because... and I'm paraphrasing this..."because the intruder was not in the resident's bedroom, they then had time to plan an attack on the intruder, hence premeditation, not self defense." So according to this ruling, it would seem that the state only considered it self defense if they were in your room. Stupid, I know. All it takes is one sleazy lawyer to twist things around against the innocent.

The way I see it, if you are intentionally intruding on my property, then I will use force commensurate to the level of threat, to defend myself. As a firearm owner, I fully understand and accept the responsibilities and consequences of using deadly force if needed. Unfortunately, I've been trained to shoot center mass, in controlled pairs. The court's not gonna like that.

The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when conscripts and militias were a much needed fact of life. The world has definitely changed. It would make things much clearer if our government, and all of the involved interest groups, would not rewrite, but redefine things to meet modern times. Yeah, we all know that'll never happen.

But what do I know, I only fought to defend these rights, so I guess I'm just a statistic now.

No, I am 34.
Yes, that is correct.
The Militia Act of 1792 required all able bodied men, between the age of 18 to 45, to serve in the local militia. If the man was new to an area, i.e. New to the United States, or just moved from one town or state to another. He would have been informed of his required duty. This included providing his own weapon. Anyone over 45 would not be required to serve. Considering the average life span for the year 1900 was 47.3 years of age.(That is 108 years later.) 45 would have been considered old. The average life span in 2000 was 77, a difference of 32.7 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027) I would think that the average in 1792 was much less than 47.3. Possibly in the 20's. I would venture to guess that most men did not stay in past 45. I don't even know if someone over 45 was allowed to stay in. Now days people in the National Guard can stay in until 60, I think. (I don't recall the exact age but it is between 60 to 65.) I have seen two guys forced out after reaching that age.
The average life span has increased since 1900. However, the National Guard max enlistment age is 42. I don't think the age limit will be changed anytime soon. Considering these Acts have a greater age limit. I would say they are still relevent.

The Dick Act of 1903 made a distinction between the now volunteer only, "organized" militia (National Guard) and the "unorganized" militia (all those who choose not to volunteer to serve).
So, for someone who never enlisted in the military, once you reach the age of 46 you are no longer in the "unorganized" militia.

My point was to show that under the Constitution with the support of these two Congressional acts, anyone between the ages of 18 to 45, most definitely has the right to bear arms.

If everyone understood this, then maybe the only argument would be wether or not people 45 and above should still have the right to bear arms.
I think they should.
 

Ahh, now there's the problem.  You need to amend the law to make it fit what you would like it to be.  You need to extend the age, a likely argument for that being that people's life expectancy is much higher nowadays.  Problem is, lots of things are different today, not the least of which is the fact that the redcoats are no longer coming.  So, you see, this is the issue with almost any law, it is subject to interpretation.  You might interpret it one way and I the complete opposite, and neither one of us could be "proven" wrong.  Ain't America grand?

<mod hat>

Civil as this conversation has been, let's move it over to the politics forum just in case

Thread locked, just because it'd take too much effort to sort through and move just the politics bits...

</mod hat>