Go Down

Topic: Keep weapons off Arduino forum and website (Read 36241 times) previous topic - next topic

GoForSmoke

I remember rte 130 in NJ back in 64 and 65, when I was 8. When they had pileups the cars were actually piled up. I saw two from the stopping before crashing viewpoint. There was smoke ahead as we arrived and yes, I have seen cars tumble and flip in the air then land on other cars. 19 and 20-some cars, smashed. No word of how many injured or dead. I don't remember seat belts then and likely there was more drunk driving than now too.
Every so far there was a junk yard with piles of junked cars. Litter-lined highways, suburbs and strip malls and of course the Cherry Hill Mall.
Are you from Jersey? Yeah? Which exit?

Well some things do get better. I haven't lived there in a long time for one. Traffic is actually safer now (even with idiots on cellphones) and so are the cars.

1) http://gammon.com.au/blink  <-- tasking Arduino 1-2-3
2) http://gammon.com.au/serial <-- techniques howto
3) http://gammon.com.au/interrupts
Your sketch can sense ongoing process events in time.
Your sketch can make events to control it over time.

AlxDroidDev


As to why gun shop owners and the police don't cause problems I can make two suggestions;

  • Do they have direct access to the weapons after they leave work

  • What percentage of the population are they and what percentage of the problem do they cause




A) In most countries, law enforcement agents (LEA, for short) DO have access to weapons when they are off duty.

B) That is irrelevant. A "LEA" going in a gun rage is such an absurd thing that, when it happens, it makes first page in every newspaper in the world. So, when it happens, we know about it. The answer, therefore, is that it doesn't really happen that often. It is a lot more common for drug addicts and the regular, run-of-the-mill bad guy to go in a gun rage than a LEA.

I also agree that guns itself aren't the problem. Bad character and mental disorders are, for over 90% of gun-related homicide.


Some of my projects:
Shield for DS1337+, DS1624 and AT24C1024B (RTC, temp & mem): http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php/topic,126197.0.html
CHDK Camera remote shutter (BT, IR, USB): http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=295377.0

retrolefty


There should be much stronger background checks and waiting periods. And I should buy stock in Smith & Wesson, Federal, Remington, etc, because every time there's a gun control push, sales of guns and ammo go right through the ionosphere.






I can relate to that behavior. I have never owned a gun and only ever fired one in training in the Air Force (M-16). I have never felt the need to own one but have always felt I should have the right to own one if events changed in my life to make me feel I should obtain one. If they passed a law in effect outlawing or making it very difficult for me to purchasing guns in the future (say effective next year) but allowed 'grandfathering' of owning a gun prior to the effective date of the new law, I would most likely go out and buy one handgun and one shotgun only because the government was going to limit my right to do so in the future. That is simple human nature I would think.

No matter how extensive a background check is performed, it doesn't deal with the problem of mental illness of a gun purchaser that has no prior 'official ruling' on the individual's mental heath and I believe that the vast number of 'outrageous' mass shootings of innocent people are primarily because of the mental condition of the shooter. Only a total ban on all gun ownership would have a shot at elimination of that and that has obvious Constitutional problems in the US whether you think that is right or wrong.

Lefty

AWOL

Quote
that has obvious Constitutional problems in the US

This is an argument I don't understand.

The right to bear arms is an amendment to your Constitution - to me it say, "look guys, we got the document wrong first time around, we're only human, so here's a correction. Now go join a well-regulated militia".

The 18th amendment was similarly contentious, and eventually it was observed that the medicine was worse than the disease, it wasn't fit-for-purpose and it was repealed.
Times move on, situations change.
"Pete, it's a fool (who) looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.
I speak for myself, not Arduino.

keeper63@cox.net


Times move on, situations change.


It is incredibly - very incredibly - difficult to amend or change the US Constitution. This was done on purpose (thankfully).

To begin to try would require either a virtual monopoly by one party (any party) across all levels of government and society (that is - one party rule everywhere - which doesn't exist today - again, thankfully) - or a level of multi-partisanship across nearly all levels of government and society that we haven't seen in decades if not longer (again, this kind of cooperation doesn't exist today, which really sucks for a lot of things).

We (by that I mean our elected officials) can barely decide on budgetary concerns - and we're still squabbling over dumb shit like the Affordable Care Act (which will likely do exactly the opposite of it's name - I just don't understand why we can't have single payer like every other civilized country).

Fat chance on gathering enough people together across all party lines to decide to alter the Constitution. This is partly (perhaps mostly for some topics) why there have been so many "end-runs" around it (both good and bad - and that view will depend on who your "sacred cows" are) via the Supreme Court (and other courts, for smaller sections of the country).
I will not respond to Arduino help PM's from random forum users; if you have such a question, start a new topic thread.

retrolefty


Quote
that has obvious Constitutional problems in the US

This is an argument I don't understand.

The right to bear arms is an amendment to your Constitution - to me it say, "look guys, we got the document wrong first time around, we're only human, so here's a correction. Now go join a well-regulated militia".

The 18th amendment was similarly contentious, and eventually it was observed that the medicine was worse than the disease, it wasn't fit-for-purpose and it was repealed.
Times move on, situations change.


Yes Constitutional meaning can be difficult for some to understand sometimes, me included. Basically the Court seems to have two different paths, to either interperate the Constitutional as it was written (original intent) or to treat it as a livable changing document.

But regardless of how one feels about any specific Supreme Court ruling, it's only the Court via it's majority ruling of it's 9 members that count. And SC rulings can change over time on the same issue. Bottom line is that only the SC rulings can state if indeed something is Constitutional or not via a specific case, no other opinion counts. It's all part of the checks and balances of power between the branches of government. The SC has limited powers, it can't pass laws, it can't implement laws, it can't enforce laws, it can only rule if a given law is Constitutional or not if context with a case they review.

GoForSmoke

Is there anyone who really thinks that everyone with a gun will just say "here, take it"?

The only people who would give them up are law-abiding and the rest would be a newly criminalized class of people, even the ones that were criminals before then.

Unless you have a magic wand that actually works beyond words and wishes? Anyone?
1) http://gammon.com.au/blink  <-- tasking Arduino 1-2-3
2) http://gammon.com.au/serial <-- techniques howto
3) http://gammon.com.au/interrupts
Your sketch can sense ongoing process events in time.
Your sketch can make events to control it over time.

AWOL

What percentage of US arms bearers actually are members of a well-regulated militia?
"Pete, it's a fool (who) looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.
I speak for myself, not Arduino.

Coding Badly

What percentage of US arms bearers actually are members of a well-regulated militia?


Two things...

1. According to Scalia the clause is irrelevant and can simply be ignored.  (He does have a habit of ignoring the disagreeable bits of the Constitution.)

2. I don't think the Court has ever decided what "a well regulated militia" is making it impossible to answer your question.

GoForSmoke

It's in and out of court. Might be settled after Palestinians and Israelis embrace or the Sun has burned to ashes, whichever comes first.

1) http://gammon.com.au/blink  <-- tasking Arduino 1-2-3
2) http://gammon.com.au/serial <-- techniques howto
3) http://gammon.com.au/interrupts
Your sketch can sense ongoing process events in time.
Your sketch can make events to control it over time.

retrolefty


It's in and out of court. Might be settled after Palestinians and Israelis embrace or the Sun has burned to ashes, whichever comes first.




I somewhat agree. But it's pretty clear to me that while local, State, and Federal governments will continue to be able to regulate gun ownership, they will most likely never be able to completely ban gun ownership in the U.S. And I think that is a pretty good compromise for everyone of both sides of the issue.

Lefty

AWOL

Quote
I don't think the Court has ever decided what "a well regulated militia" is making it impossible to answer your question.

It's a militia, and it is well-regulated.
Over here, we call it "the Army".

Quote
According to Scalia the clause is irrelevant and can simply be ignored.  (He does have a habit of ignoring the disagreeable bits of the Constitution.)

"Militia" pops up early on in the Fifth too.
Surely there must be a good definition of this by now?
The Fifth has its roots (Magna Carta, 1215) even earlier then the Second (Bill of Rights, 1689) - how can a Justice choose to ignore bits of the Constitution?
"Pete, it's a fool (who) looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.
I speak for myself, not Arduino.

wizdum

#87
Jul 05, 2013, 10:23 am Last Edit: Jul 05, 2013, 10:25 am by wizdum Reason: 1

What percentage of US arms bearers actually are members of a well-regulated militia?


Depending on who you ask, it is any able-bodied citizen, so 75%?

I'm a fan of the Penn and Teller interpretation anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
EDIT: NSFW wording near the end.

AWOL

That's just sophistry: Clearly, the "well-regulated militia" and the "free state" are meant to be seen as Good Thingstm - the colonists had not just spent two years fighting the well-regulated militia of a free state; in their eyes, they had just fought the brutal armies of a tyrannical oppressor.

Quote
Depending on who you ask, it is any able-bodied citizen, so 75%?

75% are reservists? That's impressive.
"Pete, it's a fool (who) looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.
I speak for myself, not Arduino.

Coding Badly


Quote
I don't think the Court has ever decided what "a well regulated militia" is making it impossible to answer your question.

It's a militia, and it is well-regulated.
Over here, we call it "the Army".


That is certainly one form of a militia.  I suspect the National Guard is closer to what the framers had in mind with the word "militia".

Quote
Surely there must be a good definition of this by now?


Regarding the Second, not as far as I have ever been able to find.  The Court quickly drifted towards an individual's right to bear arms making the militia clause less and less relevant (culminating in Scalia claiming it can be outright ignored).

Quote
"Militia" pops up early on in the Fifth too.


I have no idea if the Court has ever defined "militia" outside of the Second; you're on your own for that one.

Quote
how can a Justice choose to ignore bits of the Constitution?


We have some oddball justices right now.  With the imagination that goes into some rulings, I think a few of them would be better suited to writing horror fiction.

Go Up