Forum Thread
(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
Lake Martin Photo Gallery





    
Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   Scalia's opinion on gun control
Date:   1/19/2013 10:04:36 AM

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 Justice Antonin Scalia, 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller





Name:   wix - Email Member
Subject:   Scalia's opinion on gun control
Date:   1/19/2013 12:13:26 PM

So.  Put the emphasis  on felons and the mentally ill.  Automatic weapons are already illegal.  I have no personal need for 100 round mags.  Name one mass killing committed by a sane person other than Hitler, Mao, or Stalin, and I think history will show these all had their own insane issues.



Name:   architect - Email Member
Subject:   Scalia's opinion on gun control
Date:   1/19/2013 1:37:39 PM (updated 1/19/2013 1:42:34 PM)

A bit taken aback by Wixie's opinion that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not fully insane but, by historical evidence, subject to "insane issues".  I think history demonstrates all of them to be down right bat doodoo crazy!  I also think we have a lot of little Hitler wannabes running around with legally obtained guns with high capacity magazines and they don't plan to use them to shoot supper.



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Look at the politics of the five worst
Date:   1/19/2013 2:12:17 PM

gun massacres in the U.S. and all are liberal-progressives.  As was the unibomber.  As was the weather underground.  As was......oh well, what am I thinking using facts and logic with you Archie.  Excuse me for foolishly trying once again.

And of course you would jump on the Bob Schieffer bandwagon and call law abiding citizens that own guns Adolf Hitler.  I have quite a few Jewish friends that own guns that had relatives exterminated by Hitler that would take exception to your correlary.  But why let that stop a left wing nut that can't win an argument based on facts, logic or reason when a good ad homenim attack can make you feel better.



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 2:35:23 PM

No one, not even the boogyman NRA denies that.  Felons, the mentally ill, etc. should not be allowed to purchase or own guns.....not that stops them from getting them.

But here's a question for you gun control guys.  Why do the police have assault style weapons in their arsenal?



Name:   architect - Email Member
Subject:   Winning arguments
Date:   1/19/2013 6:26:36 PM

Frankly MM, I think I have had a fairly good record with my facts and figures Lately.  Now I realize in your mind I have never won an argument,  but in the average thinking person's assessment I suspect I have faired pretty well in the accurate statistics category.  Have your own opinions MM, but the facts belong to us all!



Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 7:16:56 PM

i thought it was important to note that one of the leading conservative Justices of the Supreme Court has already outlined that the 2nd Amendment is not under attack by gun control laws, and that there are rational ways to discriminate between who should own a weapon, and what type of weapons are generally available for public sale.     if one of the leading conservative jurists in the country is taking this position, then it just adds to my feeling that the NRA is being completely histrionic. 

     MM, the police have assault style weapons because sometimes it is necessary for them to conduct assaults.   Private citizens do not conduct assaults, they conduct defensive actions while waiting for the police to arrive.   And, i don’t think you can attribute gun violence to left-wing politics … Timothy McVey wasn’t a left-winger, and the 2 kids at Columbine were barely shaving… much less involved in politics.   Politics didn’t drive or influence the shooter in Aurora Colorado or Sandy Hook, those guys were insane….  

   Looks like we are coming to some agreements here.   Limited clip size & background checks seem like common ground to many.   Congress will have to address the question of what is or isn’t an assault style weapon… but their track record of moving on any substantive issue these days is abysmal.   Meanwhile, i think we can easily live with the President’s few Executive Orders.   By the way, did anybody find it surprising that previously the CDC has been prevented from researching violence?    i was blown away that this had been written into national policy anyway.

     Meanwhile, if you want to make a quick strike in the stock market… buy gun manufacturers for a short term gain, but watch for the bubble to burst.   Just like Y2K, the Mayan Calendar, and comets that bring the end of the world.





Name:   alahusker - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 9:22:52 PM

What do we agree on here??  I do not, nor will I, rely on my .22 squirrel rifle to hold off home intruders until the sheriff  department arrives after a 20 mile transit, having called 911, given directions to my home and hoping they have a current map of rural Tallapoosa County ?  Nope, not how it works in my mind... will call 911, but after the fact, I suspect..  





Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Winning arguments
Date:   1/19/2013 9:37:35 PM

I would say you have gotten one thing right in years Archie. I said first term and should have said second. Other than that you have demonstrated an incredible ability to draw the wrong conclusions about pretty much everything. Jimmy Carter had a good economic record. LOL. Gun control works. RFLMAO. TOTUS has done a good job because of fictional job creation numbers. HAHAHA. Keep the laughs coming Archibald. You do have a future in comedy.



Name:   alahusker - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 9:41:47 PM

But really, all of this stuff is fluff, we continue to talk past one another.. 

Copperline, I ask:  What was the original intent of the framers??  Was it valid when they came up with it??  Is it valid now?? 

Assume you know the answer to the former.  Interested to your opinion on the latter two.. ..



Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 9:43:28 PM

Well, I wouldn't go for the .22 squirrel gun either in that case.   But a 20 gauge shotgun is almost as common a gun for many families... and there is no discussion of putting limits on these guns... other than a background check.  

So if you go for the .22, make sure the wife is standing behind you with the shotgun. 



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   You are mistaken
Date:   1/19/2013 9:44:17 PM (updated 1/19/2013 10:26:54 PM)

Police have assault weapons to protect themselves, period! Look at the history. They developed SWAT teams after the devastating experience in LA with those two that illegally modified guns to make them automatic and wore body armor. They have these guns to protect themselves. Why shouldn't any law abiding citizen have the same right? And guess what, they do not have a duty to protect you. They are only required to protect themselves. SCOTUS decision. I for one am not going to rely on the police who are not in my home 24/7 and only have weapons to protect themselves. I will take care of myself and my family and I have a right to as do you. That you choose to rely on others is entirely up to you. But don't ask me to risk my life to protect you if you don't have the guts or desire to do it yourself. You are on your own.....well, you can always call the police and see how that works out for you. And no one on the right has claimed politics drove many of those but it is a constant refrain on the left and in the govt media, including lies like they told about the Aurora shooter. But I can tell you that the politics of the five worst mass murderers using guns was progressive/liberal. The point being made in response to the baseless and false aspersions made by leftists about the gun lobby and law abiding citizens that own guns. On a final note, I do not agree about magazine capacity. There is no reason, zero, zip, nada to prevent a law abiding citizen from owning large clip magazines. I have two 30 clip magazine for my AR-15 and they are no danger to anyone other than someone that makes the huge mistake of breaking into my home.



Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 9:59:05 PM

My understanding is that the Framers of the Constitution put the clause in because they had just fought a revolution against an oppressive government, most of their population was living in or near frontier areas, & gun ownership was as natural as owning a horse.   It was a good idea, and I think that people should have the right to bear arms and defend themselves then and now.   In the 1700's, an armed populace would have had a chance of defeating the Army of its day.   In 2013, that's a ridiculous thought.   Armed civilians aren't what will keep the US military from taking over the country, so I don't think we need to be arming ourselves for that purpose.   Home defense weaponry is different, and will always be OK in the US.  

The situation has changed and individual citizens can now buy really powerful military weapons that have no practical use outside of a battlefield.   As those weapons circulate and we add more to the overall total of assault weapons in people's hands... then I think you will see them in mass shootings.   At least a crazy person with a 20 gauge bird-gun isn't going to do as much damage as the same guy with an AK-47. 

It's all about lowering the overall risk, not about depriving citizens of their right to defend themselves.   The impact on the rate of violence in the country probably won't go down quickly because of just gun control... other things will have to happen to see that change.



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/19/2013 10:05:24 PM

We have lots of recent examples of democratically elected govts that have gone tyrranical. You have to be ignorant of history to believe it can't happen here. All that has changed is technology....man remains the same. And I thought we already dispelled this misconception that fewer guns means less crime. The result is exactly the opposite. Spend some time in the gun control zone of Chicago and you will see what I mean. But keep the police close if you can.....you will need them.



Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   You are mistaken
Date:   1/19/2013 10:55:47 PM

Honestly, if I needed that kind of firepower to feel safe in my home, I would move.   I don't need that to feel safe where I live.



Name:   GoneFishin - Email Member
Subject:   You are mistaken but I am right
Date:   1/19/2013 11:53:18 PM

All the news about owning a gun does  have an impact on the mind set of anyone considering an occupation as a breakin specialist.  Only a fool would consider breaking into an occupied home not knowing if the owner has an arsenal. I still think the best deterent is a barking dog.



Name:   MrHodja - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/20/2013 12:16:25 AM

I take exception to your statement "Armed civilians aren't what will keep the US military from taking over the country, so I don't think we need to be arming ourselves for that purpose".  Our military is us, and I have significant problem with the idea that us would start killing us at the behest of some corrupt government.  Civilian control of the military has never been tested when the "enemy" is us.  We have very intelligent folks leading the military and I believe that we are not Syria.

The founders of this great nation were exceptionally forward thinking.  The second amendment is not about personal defense or hunting.  It is about keeping our government in check.  And that is not outdated. 



Name:   MrHodja - Email Member
Subject:   You are mistaken but I am right
Date:   1/20/2013 12:24:43 AM

While I agree that dogs make the miscreant look for a target where he/she won't bring so much attention (I joke that my house is protected by the firm of Butch and Honey), the knowledge that the homeowner will protect his or her "castle" with deadly force definitely sends the miscreant to a place not so well protected.  So, doesn't that mean that everyone should be so protected?  If that is the case the miscreant faces sure armed resistance and thus reconsiders his or her decision to take rather than earn.



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   You need to think this through
Date:   1/20/2013 9:23:43 AM

The issue here is one of probability and magnitude. Where I live the probability of being a victim of a break in is very low but of course the magnitude of harm could be very high. I assume you have smoke detectors in your home, right? Do you realize that the probability of a home fire is much lower than the probability of being a victim of a violent crime? And yet I assume you protect yourself from that very low probability event, right? That is of course a very rational thing to do. In fact, I have fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, CO2 detectors and our family has an evacuation plan in case of fire. All for a possible event with an incredibly low probability of happening. Does that make me or you a nut? Of course not, and yet the left somehow has you convinced that we are paranoid nuts for wanting to own guns to protect ourselves and wanting to have as much firepower as the criminals have. That to me is even more irrational than having fire protection and here's why. You might feel safe in your home but I assume you don't stay there 24/7/365, right? And I assume you probably go to areas that are much less safe than your home right? So your odds of being a victim of violent crime could rise dramatically just doing what ordinary people do every day. And yet you choose to do so without protecting yourself. As for me and many others, we choose to do the opposite. And it is much more rational than your decision to be unprotected. But if you want to be consistent, you need to get rid of your fire detection gear in your home. I mean, what are the odds? Think about it.....and by the way, I am obviously being facetious and making a rhetorical point. But clearly it's no more irrational to own a gun for protection than having a smoke detector and in my opinion less so.



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   You haven't met my dog
Date:   1/20/2013 9:26:24 AM

She is a sweet Rhodesian Ridgeback that rarely barks and sleeps like the dead. I suspect someone could empty the house of all our valuables and she would wouldn't wake up. But if they went into the refrigerator they better be armed and dangerous. :-)



Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   Of course there are limits
Date:   1/20/2013 9:58:55 AM

I think we are agreeing with each other.    I don't think that an armed populace is what would keep the military from taking sinister actions against us, it's their morality and sense of comradeship with civilians.   That's why I think that any notion about arming people sufficiently to defend against an attack by the government is just hysterical fear- mongering...  

Yes, the military is full of bright and dedicated people... similarly, the civilian government is also.   These people are not our enemies, they are us.   And while I may disagree with some of those bright & dedicated people, I will not be planning to take up arms against them.

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is a good idea, its intentions are fundamentally correct when it was written and in 2013.     I just don't think that a few gun control measures erode it's protections or intent.

To me,  the 'armed populace' argument doesn't have a good foundation in reality.   After all,  a 20 yr old recruit sitting in an underground bunker in Utah can bring a drone-fired missile to a pin point strike half the world away and never spill his coffee.     Granting me the right to have military-style assault weapons could never make my family safe from that.   But the fact that the 20 yr old has civilian parents, friends and family would.





Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   Probability & magnitude
Date:   1/20/2013 10:21:25 AM

I agree, the nut of this disagreement is in the probabilities and magnitude.   Here's how I see it:  burglars do not bring long guns to burglaries.   They are in the snatch and grab business.   Muggers on the streets don't carry assault rifles, and neither will you if you visit Chicago.   Having high capacity magazines don't improve home defense any better than a shotgun with bird shot.   Barking dogs are very effective.  

A collection of weapons give no additional advantage since I can only fire one at a time anyway.   And having a trove of weapons in my home is just like keeping a safe full of cash in the bedroom, it increases risks associated with attracting home invasion and makes the damage of a theft even more grave.  

But the best defensive weapon is common sense & a cool head.  I try to keep these around at all times....as best I can.



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Probability & magnitude
Date:   1/20/2013 12:01:03 PM

You can have your common sense and I will have my guns and my common sense and the knowledge that I am better protected. And by the way, owning guns doesn't invite break ins unless some irresponsible paper publishes your address like they did in NY. Which they have removed out of fear of lawsuits but the damage has been done. Fact is that laws actually promoting gun ownership as with my old hometown of Kennesaw, GA dramatically reduces crime, even if the laws are not enforced. I want criminals to think I might have a gun and sadly, those very same anti gun types like Archie benefit from my willingness to be responsible. You can rationalize having smoke detectors but won't protect yourself and your family with a gun. I just don't get it......



Name:   GoneFishin - Email Member
Subject:   Probability & magnitude
Date:   1/20/2013 12:39:10 PM

I own multiple smoke detectors, wear a life preserver, use seat belts, and own a rifle. I just wonder if you are aseep at 2AM and someone breaks in will youI hear them or be able to wake up and grab your AR 15?. You will probably think it is just a dream unless your dogs wakes you up.

Some years ago, someone opened our garage door with the remote that was left in an unlocked car that was parked
in the idriveway. The opener was a Sears with a chain drive and woke up my wife. She tried to convince me that someone had opened the door. Finally, I grabbed my rifle and went downstairs. The dude was backing out the driveway and I leveled the rifle but did not shoot. It was just a car. I got the keys to the other car and went after thestolen one whle my wife called the police. At the intersection leaving the sub division i turned right and did not find the car. The police caught the guy as he had turned left and they found him pulled over asleep. It was a 21 year old neighborhood kid who I did not know. He had a previous conviction for drugs and did serve the theft.

I will always own my rifle. 



Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Probability & magnitude
Date:   1/21/2013 9:45:33 AM

Scary story but glad it worked out OK.  I hope he got help.

While I am a light sleeper, I would assume my alarm system will work and I will wake up.  That in and of itself should send them away but if not, plan B will do the trick.







Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos




About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
www.LakeMartin.com
THE LAKE MARTIN WEBSITE

Copyright 2024, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal