Amtrak Lifts Ban on Guns effective Dec 15th.

[Trogdor]

Apparently Amtrak agrees as they just changed their regulations to accomodate firearms transportation.

As I said earlier, and you apparently ignored, this was not Amtrak's decision. Amtrak didn't have the choice to agree or disagree. It was legislated into the most recent budget. If the clause about firearm transportation had not been inserted by a congressman into the last budget, I guarantee you that Amtrak would not be changing its policy regarding firearms this month.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

daxomni, I tried to respond favorably, though sarcatically to your comments, but it seems the site editor might favor gun rights, but not freedom if speech. My comments were censored out of existance.

If you feel the post was removed in error you can send a PM to AlanB and he might be able to bring it back, possibly in slightly edited form, or at least explain why it was removed.

Militias have jack diddly squat to do with the second amendment.

The Constitution is rather old and vague and open to multiple interpretations as the terms it once used change in meaning and purpose over time. This is something we all have to accept when making claims as to what the originally intended and best interpreted meaning of any given phrase should be for our era. That being said, all you appear to be advocating here is selective reading. If the words are there we can't just pretend they don't exist or don't matter.

What we are talking about in this post is the right of the law abiding citizen to peacefully and lawfully transport his legal weapon on an Amtrak train. Apparently Amtrak agrees as they just changed their regulations to accomodate firearms transportation.

If Amtrak agrees then why did it take an act of Congress to force them to begin accepting firearms again?

If anyone is on this post to condemn or is somehow paranoid about the lawful and proper transportation of firearms on a train, I will only say that this may be an indication that they have a deep seated hatred of people who own firearms for target shooting, hunting or self defense.

I don't hate random gun owners, nor have I ever claimed to. I do however hate people who mow down innocent victims simply because they couldn't handle being laid off or dumped or getting cut-off by a bad driver or whatever else set them off. And I hate those who leave guns where others can get to them and suffer or cause others to suffer from their use. Getting guns out of the hands of unstable or irresponsible people is a good thing in my view. Since the regulations we currently have aren't preventing unstable and irresponsible people from getting guns I want more and better regulations. Seems simple enough to me. No hated is required to want a better life for those who have the unlucky misfortune of winding up with a crazy friend, irresponsible relative, or indiscriminate stranger.

For the record I am neither a Republican or a Democrat so this left vs right nonsense means nothing to me.

For the record, both the Republicans and Democrats are right-of-center of this issue compared to most industrialized democracies, at least at the federal level. Just thought you might want to know that.

 

[MrFSS]

daxomni, I tried to respond favorably, though sarcastically to your comments, but it seems the site editor might favor gun rights, but not freedom if speech. My comments were censored out of existence.

If you feel the post was removed in error you can send a PM to AlanB and he might be able to bring it back, possibly in slightly edited form, or at least explain why it was removed.

AlnaB didn't remove it, I did. There was no way to tell the poster was being sarcastic, not even any emoticons were being used. And, since the poster isn't a registered member I had no way to communicate with him to see what he had to say about the post.

The post seemed like an attack of daxomni and as most members of this forum know, we really don't want that on the forum. We allow a lot to go on and everyone may have his say and there are lots of disagreements. But, personal attacks aren't allowed.

 

[Vermonster]

Ummm, I don't know how you could have possibly thought my post was an attack on daxomni. He was not mentioned, or even referred to remotely and my sarcasim was obviously directed at some of the more extreme comments posted against his position. But since it was removed, no one can now make that judgement on their own. That is the problem with censorship, and why freedom of speech is so vital in a society that values personal freedoms.

 

[leemell]

Try comparing violent crime and homicide (by any method, not just guns) rate and you'll discover that the facts lead you elsewhere. Are you any safer in a country where you're just as likely (if not more so) to get stabbed or beaten to death just because you're not going to get shot? I don't think so.

I'm curious where you're getting your information from. From what I've read US has one of the worst homicide rates among industrialized democracies. Countries that are generally lawless, are in the midst of civil war, or suffer from routine coups are far worse but why would I compare them with us? Surely we should expect more than what Zambia can provide? Among the countries that have fewer homicides they generally have far stricter gun control laws. Why wouldn't I be safer in a country where the weapons of choice are fists and knives? At least I'd have a chance of besting my opponent or holding them off long enough for someone else to escape. Against a gun-wielding maniac? Not so much.

If you want a source check here The UK has five times the violent crime rate of the US. While the US's has been falling for 20 years, the UK's has been soaring, even as they clamp down to the point of banning almost all private firearms. I don't know the rates, but the same thing has been happening in Australia since major gun controls were enacted there about six years ago. Oh, and BTW, knife wounds are much more lethal that gun shots. Check with emergency medicine statistics.

As I said in a prior post, none of this is relevant to Amtrak except for traveling with firearms.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I am pro 2nd Amendment person my self but doesnt gun carrying laws differ from state to state?

In NY, you are not even allowed to transport guns without NY state license. Which is impossible to get.

They see you with a gun, they arrest you.

 

[George Harris]

Militias have jack diddly squat to do with the second amendment. I don't have the link handy, but an English professor did a linguistic analysis of the second amendment. It all boils down to something about the "well regulated militias" being subordinate rather defining, meaning the second amendment's power would be unchanged if you removed the part about "well regulated militias."

Matthew: Obviously, now that I read it, I did not say it very well, but what you are saying is exactly my point. The framers of the Constitution wanted an armed population. The part about "militia" was simply explaining one of the things they wanted to ensure. They had a fear of standing armies, based on them being primarily the forces used by kings to oppress their subjects, so one of their concepts was that in case of need the citizens could step up to the plate to form an army bringing their own weapons with them.

As to the thought by anybody that regulation will get guns out of the hands of those that would use them irresponsibly, that horse has already left the barn and closing the door will not get it back in it. Many places have found that one great deterrent to gun crimes, and other crimes against people and property is the possibility that the object of the crime could shoot back.

I love the sign you see in the window of some impendent gas stations is the one with a picture of the business end of a revolver with the words, "Forget the dog, and beware of owner."

But then I grew up in a time and a place where "everybody' had a gun cabinet in their house with their guns nicely displayed. It was there so you could admire then, not fear them.

Much as I revere the Constitution, I can say as a person that at times writes specifications, that the second amendment is an example of what not to do. When you say a "what" do not give a "why" When you do, it gives the other party something to shoot at. If he can impugn the validity of the why he has gone a long way to getting around the what.

 

[Gratt]

Can we please close this thread? :help: :help: :help:

The back and forth comments are on the verge of getting nasty (if they are not already) :blink:

and are straying way of the topic(s) of Amtrak, Passenger rail, and transportation.

There are plenty of forums that talk about gun laws this is not one of them.

 

[AlanB]

That is the problem with censorship, and why freedom of speech is so vital in a society that values personal freedoms.

Since this is a privately owned forum and not a publicly owned forum, you have no right to Freedom of Speech. You only have the rights granted you by the forum owner, which for the record is not me. However, after years of assisting the owner, I believe that I have a pretty good idea of the standards that he wants. Which is why you'll find that I've edited your latest post to remove comments that constitute a personal attack against a forum member.