Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 21 Nov '09 08:02
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=51902

    Packing heat at Starbucks for all the world to see

    In a report highlighting the "open carry" gun movement, KTVU's Lloyd LaCuesta interviewed locals who are hanging out in public, packing heat and exerting their Second Amendment right for all the world to see.

    Advocates across the country are picnicking together, going to zoos, going to church and picking up trash. Most notably, supporters protested Obama this past summer. In the Bay area, David Julian, 27, and others are hanging out at a Cupertino Starbucks, sipping their Venti coffees with guns holstered to their hips.

    Supporters, who appear to come from all backgrounds, also say they're toting firearms to educate others about guns and their constitutional right. They're doing it protect themselves. And they can do it legally, as Julian demonstrated in his YouTube video below, which shows two Santa Clara deputies checking Julian's guns.

    ...
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 09:49
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Supporters, who appear to come from all backgrounds, also say they're toting firearms to educate others about guns and their constitutional right. They're doing it protect themselves.
    I think you'll find the right you are referring to is to own firearms if you are a member of a legitimate civil defence militia organisation not just for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have the right to own firearms and carry them around in public. That'd be daft.
  3. 21 Nov '09 13:07 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think you'll find the right you are referring to is to own firearms if you are a member of a legitimate civil defence militia organisation not just for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have the right to own firearms and carry them around in public. That'd be daft.
    No, that's exactly what the the "open carry" movement is referring to. The state I live in allows firearms to be openly carried with no license required.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 13:22
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    The state I live in allows firearms to be openly carried with no license required.
    But if you look at the sentence in the Constitution used to justify it! It doesn't make sense. It clearly states that the right to carry guns is for members of militias.
  5. 21 Nov '09 13:26
    Originally posted by FMF
    But if you look at the sentence in the Constitution used to justify it! It doesn't make sense. It clearly states that the right to carry guns is for members of militias.
    I'm a militia of one.
  6. 21 Nov '09 13:29
    Originally posted by FMF
    But if you look at the sentence in the Constitution used to justify it! It doesn't make sense. It clearly states that the right to carry guns is for members of militias.
    Oh my gosh. Now "its" interpreting the U.S. Constitution!
    What are your qualifications?
  7. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    21 Nov '09 13:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Oh my gosh. Now "its" interpreting the U.S. Constitution!
    What are your qualifications?
    I think everyone is qualified to interpret documents. In fact, it's our obligation to try to understand it, as citizens. That doesn't mean our interpretation will be the same as a judges.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 13:37
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Oh my gosh. Now "its" interpreting the U.S. Constitution!
    What are your qualifications?
    There is an interesting debate about the interpretation/misinterpretation of the 'right to bear arms' clause. At least I've always found it interesting.
  9. 21 Nov '09 13:49 / 1 edit
    Here are some of the views of the founding fathers on the subject of citizens bearing arms;

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."[i/] -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

    [i]"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 13:51
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Here are some of the views of the founding fathers and chief writer of the constitution on the subject of citizens bearing arms...
    I wasn't talking about the 'founding fathers'. It seems you are unaware of the difference of opinion over this among some Americans right now in the 21stC. Surely not?
  11. 21 Nov '09 13:57
    Originally posted by FMF
    I wasn't talking about the 'founding fathers'. It seems you are unaware of the difference of opinion over this among some Americans right now in the 21stC. Surely not?
    They are very relevant to the topic because they wrote it. And it shows their views and exactly what they meant by what they wrote.Clearly the intention is for the citizenry to have the right to bear arms for their own personal protection from evil doers and from the government itself if need be
  12. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    21 Nov '09 14:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think you'll find the right you are referring to is to own firearms if you are a member of a legitimate civil defence militia organisation not just for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have the right to own firearms and carry them around in public. That'd be daft.
    These fellows certainly were daft!

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

    "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

    "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)


    Populist opinion in the 21st century as a tool for shredding the Bill of Rights?
    With that logic, what next will you take from the minority?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 14:06
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    They are very relevant to the topic because they wrote it. And it shows their views and exactly what they meant by what they wrote.Clearly the intention is for the citizenry to have the right to bear arms for their own personal protection from evil doers [b]and from the government itself if need be[/b]
    As I said, there is an interesting debate about the interpretation of the 'right to bear arms' clause. I've heard your view before. It is the prevailing one, enshrined in the law of the land. But I don't agree. Nor do I subscribe to the whole 'framers' intention' thing. I find it profoundly undemocratic. I may be in the minority on that. Or maybe not. But certainly pointing to the wording of the constitution - and dissenting - is whistling in the wind. But it's an interesting debate nevertheless.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 14:10
    Originally posted by monster truck
    These fellows certainly were daft!
    Your quotes are not from the constitution. The 'framers' intentions' only have as much weight in law as the text of the constitution lends them, and as much significance as 21stC Americans choose to apportion to them - by way of the democratic process of deliberation and consultation.
  15. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    21 Nov '09 14:16
    An unfettered Rule by Omnipotent Majority in the pure Democracy you're basing your position on provides for no protection of the minorities or the individual. Sounds like a regressive stance to me.