Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Yet another school shooting in the USA
-
18-01-2011 7:51pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Erm, they are. AR-15, Ak-47 anyone? Cheap! Well no not really. I think a Klashnikov will set you back $1400 before ammunition.The NRA are still pushing for assault rifles to become legal.
Here's hoping for biometric-restricted firearms though.
And you're the LD Mod!Why the fúck does John Q. Public need to own an AK-47?
And going by the Legislative Intent of the 2nd Amendment thats one of the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms must be maintained to prevent an Armed Government from supressing the will of the People by force. That was back during a time when the best armies still only had muskets, cannons and horses. Now the military is a bit more serious, and Armed. But the right of people to own these weapons still holds as much meaning today as it did then: An unarmed nation is susceptible to tyranny at any given moment. 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 infringed0 -
-
-
-
-
Erm, they are. AR-15, Ak-47 anyone? Cheap! Well no not really. I think a Klashnikov will set you back $1400 before ammunition.
Here's hoping for biometric-restricted firearms though.And you're the LD Mod!
To be far the constitution is like the bible; most people pick and chose the parts that suit them.
I've no problme with sane people owning guns for hunting etc but deranged morons with access to weapons that are designed to kill as many people in as little time as possible is just asking for trouble.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
.And you're the LD Mod!And going by the Legislative Intent of the 2nd Amendment thats one of the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms must be maintained to prevent an Armed Government from supressing the will of the People by force. That was back during a time when the best armies still only had muskets, cannons and horses. Now the military is a bit more serious, and Armed. But the right of people to own these weapons still holds as much meaning today as it did then: An unarmed nation is susceptible to tyranny at any given moment. 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
Hang on now, you can't pretend to know the "legislative intent" of the 2nd Amendment. The only people that can know that are the writers of the Constitution.
There are many methods of interpreting the 2nd Amendment and as I've pointed out elsewhere most Constitutional scholars that interpret that rely on one of 2 methods: historical interpretation or "living" interpretation.
Historical interpretations would take it to mean that the people have a right to form a well regulated militia and that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. That is, the People have the said right to keep and bear arms in order to form a well regulated (that is there is some form of oversight) militia.
Others believe that it must be looked at in a modern context... but even then, it's hard to see how it can be interpreted to mean that you can keep and bear arms without the requisite militia membership.
That's one of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment is oft misquoted as merely "the right to bear arms".
Yep, I am the legal discussion moderator and if you really want to challenge me on constitutional interpretation of the US Constitution or Bunreacht na hÉireann I'd be glad to go there
0 -
-
Manic Moran wrote: »1934 National Firearms Act implemented restrictions and additional taxes on them. Getting a Class III licencse to allow ownership can be done, but it's a bit more than just dropping off a form at the police station.
It was compounded by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act which banned the production or importation of new automatic firearms for the private populace. This meant that only the machineguns in existance in 1986 are available, and with limited supply to meet demand, prices have since been artificially high.
NTM
seems rather ridiculous though, I'm sure as much damage can be done with semi auto ar 15 and could be done with a full auto military ar15
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Hang on now, you can't pretend to know the "legislative intent" of the 2nd Amendment. The only people that can know that are the writers of the Constitution.
There are many methods of interpreting the 2nd Amendment and as I've pointed out elsewhere most Constitutional scholars that interpret that rely on one of 2 methods: historical interpretation or "living" interpretation.
Historical interpretations would take it to mean that the people have a right to form a well regulated militia and that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. That is, the People have the said right to keep and bear arms in order to form a well regulated (that is there is some form of oversight) militia.
Others believe that it must be looked at in a modern context... but even then, it's hard to see how it can be interpreted to mean that you can keep and bear arms without the requisite militia membership.
That's one of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment is oft misquoted as merely "the right to bear arms".
Yep, I am the legal discussion moderator and if you really want to challenge me on constitutional interpretation of the US Constitution or Bunreacht na hÉireann I'd be glad to go there
In that case, might I direct your attention to the ruling in Heller vs District of Columbia which addresses your theory, and refutes it. The 2nd protects a right to arms which is unconnected with militia service.
(Plus, you also have the small item that under US law, basically every able-bodied male is in the militia anyway).
NTM0 -
Hang on now, you can't pretend to know the "legislative intent" of the 2nd Amendment. The only people that can know that are the writers of the Constitution.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Many more inside the link.
HaThere are many methods of interpreting the 2nd Amendment and as I've pointed out elsewhere most Constitutional scholars that interpret that rely on one of 2 methods: historical interpretation or "living" interpretation.
Historical interpretations would take it to mean that the people have a right to form a well regulated militia and that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. That is, the People have the said right to keep and bear arms in order to form a well regulated (that is there is some form of oversight) militia.
Others believe that it must be looked at in a modern context... but even then, it's hard to see how it can be interpreted to mean that you can keep and bear arms without the requisite militia membership.
That's one of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment is oft misquoted as merely "the right to bear arms".
Yep, I am the legal discussion moderator and if you really want to challenge me on constitutional interpretation of the US Constitution or Bunreacht na hÉireann I'd be glad to go there
I see your point about the regulated militia however I believe that constitutes the gun lobbies and the NRA and such, the gun vendors, etc. and it is the case in most states that your firearm be licensed and/or registered. And many gun owners freely choose to take membership in organizations, like the NRA, which promote gun safety but also gun liberties.
Never been shot with an airsoft in the handball alleys then? I agree, Ireland has fewer guns and poorer access to guns and enjoys fewer gun related incidents but it's a double-edged sword shield that prevents the people from having much sway against the appointed government which having disarmed it's constituents finds no critical need to keep it's people happy other than to collect fatter paychecks. Whereas is the case elsewhere, the leaders have to take into consideration just how violent the population can become when real civil unrest occurs, and I'm not talking about the student protest which was a tame joke in comparison to real riots that occur around the world.I'm sure a school shoot up would happen here too if guns were so easy to come by.0 -
-
-
seems rather ridiculous though, I'm sure as much damage can be done with semi auto ar 15 and could be done with a full auto military ar15
Oddly enough, it's been noted that the anti-gun types have been flip-flopping on the issue. On the one hand, you'll see them going on about how machineguns should be banned because they spray bullets and are very dangerous, on the other hand, you'll also see them targetting semi-autos because, unlike machineguns which spray bullets, a semi-auto allows accurate, precise shooting.Seems from quick scanning of the legislation and otherwise that you need a federal permit from the ATF?
For full-auto, correct.
NTM0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
An american friend just told me it was an accidental discharge after a bag with a gun in it was slammed onto the table
eta: it doesnt sidestep the gun control issue but "kid dressed in black shoots 3 people" is poor reporting if my friends story is accurate.0 -
-
Google adsense doesn't care, but i imagine it would link you to a foreign website where the sale of tasers is permitted.the purple tin wrote: »Just noticed a link at the top of the site advertising tasers for sale
Are they not classed as firearms in Ireland?
Personally I concede that those figures do correlate, that Ireland and Japan have fewer instances of violence because of bans and whatever, but, I still subscribe to the idea that the right to own weapons is necessary to the protection of a free state.Your statement is a fallacy actually. What you're saying is essentially: If guns are responsible for deaths then the country with the fewest guns should have the fewest deaths. The country with the fewest guns does not have the fewest deaths, therefore guns are not responsible for deaths.
That's denying the antecedent.
You need to look at the correlation between gun law strictness and gun deaths.
From a quick search Japan and Greece seem to have the strictest gun laws - I'm using the most up-to-date data I can find on the google
Greece has 0.59 firearm homicides per 100,000, Japan has 0.02 per 100,000... even Ireland at 0.03 per 100,000.
Compare that with 7.07 per 100,000 in the US, 74.57 per 100,000 in South Africa, 9.88 per 100,00 in Mexico0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement