NationStates Jolt Archive

When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, it is highly doubtful that its framers could have foreseen how deadly and how powerful arms have become. Perhaps it's time to re-examine the wisdom (or folly, if you prefer) of this admendment.

1) How loosely is one to narrow what type of arms? Since the admendment doesn't specify, it could, using the broadest interpretation, include the right to bear nuclear arms. I doubt anyone would get away arguing that, but if it can be restricted that way, how much more restrictive should it be?
2) Why not let the states and cities decide the matter? Isn't that, for all intents and purposes, how it's pretty much already done already?
3) What better way for anti-gun control advocates to make their case when, once those areas which start restricting arms suddenly become uncontrollable?

When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, it is highly doubtful that its framers could have foreseen how deadly and how powerful arms have become. Perhaps it's time to re-examine the wisdom (or folly, if you prefer) of this admendment.
]

The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure the government doesn't trash the rest of them. So you CAN resist the government. I'm not giving up my freedom so easily.

Not to mention ALL the crime increases in every single country that has banned guns (most recently, Australia).

Studys show that crime increases the moment a gun ban goes in. The Department of Health and Human Services released a study showing that gun control doesn't do a whit of good in stopping crime.

Time to concentrate on what really causes crime--people, not guns.

I love guns and look what happened when the Nazis banned guns, Russia, and China bad things happen when you ban guns. And the other thing if the government banned guns there would be a rebellion.

Oh yeah, Britain turned into a fascist dictatorship the moment that guns were banned :rolleyes:

the costitution says people have to bare arms but at the time of the writing there were no WMD's as those were invented over a hundred years later.

to put it plainly, "guns cause crime like flys cause garbage"

I'm more of a blade man myself.

I'm thinking of making claymore ownership mandatory in my nation... :cool:

Oh yeah, Britain turned into a fascist dictatorship the moment that guns were banned :rolleyes:

You're right, it didn't. But your violent crime rate went up.

"to put it plainly, "guns cause crime like flys cause garbage"

True , Name one rifle,handgun,shotgun that had any intentions other than the intent of the beholder(any possessed guns out there?)Wheather it be unintentionably or with intent, it still boils down to being a reaction to an action. As someone notably stated in another thread on another subject, its all relative to ones own doings, good or bad. What would happen if guns were banned? Lets say someone breaks into my home, and they are obviously a criminal so they dont care about a ban on guns (they have one), but in the darkness and knowing your surroundings (in your own home) you take a fork and jab it through the criminals eye, piercing the membrane to the brain, instantly causing an anerism in the criminal and killing him. Are we going to call for banning forks now?

If so, then fork off you control freak.

I support making guns very hard to get and tracking every gun sold very strictly, but I do not support banning guns.

better yet , one can cause this death with ones finger if you know what you are doing, should we ban peoples fingers? If so.. then I'll give you just one finger, and that... I bet you can guess which one it is.

I support a ban of Assualt rifles and other fully automatic weapons, as well as explosives. They have no purpose other than to kill other people. You don't go out and buy an assualt rifle to go hunting with, you buy it with the intent on someday killing someone with it.

As for rifles and shotguns, I think there needs to be regulations on them, but I support the right to own those because they can be used for hunting.

Handguns are mostly a 'personal defence' weapon, but they can have other uses, so I support the right to own those too.

I love guns and look what happened when the Nazis banned guns, Russia, and China bad things happen when you ban guns. And the other thing if the government banned guns there would be a rebellion.


Australia's crime rate DID NOT increase when the buyback program went into effect:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And the Nazis didn't ban guns. They LOOSENED restrictions put on guns by the Treaty of Versaille. Made killing the Communists and Jews easier.

From the Firearms Policy Journal:
"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

March 18, 1938, with Hitler already in power, the Nazi's passed the German Weapons Law. This law relaxed the restrictions on weapons for all German citizens (Jews and Communists weren't citizens under Hitler)

Had the Weimar Republic been a little more strict witht he enforcement of the gun ban, the Nazis may never have taken power.

And the idea that we need guns to protect us from our government becoming oppressive is the most absurd and laughable thing I've ever heard.

When a government becomes a dictatorship, history has shown that 9 times outta 10, it happens because the people LET it happen. Guns or no guns, if the US government becomes repressive, you can guarantee that it'll happen because the populace is stupid enough to just let it happen. In which case, guns wouldn't do you a bit of good, especially when governments have things like bomber aircraft, tanks and ballistic missles. What good is a gun going to do when an opressive government can just drop a bomb on your house, killing you instantly?

I made this on another forum:
History has shown that governments almost never take away someone's freedoms by force, but that the public willingly surrenders those freedoms, or becomes so apathetic that the freedoms can be taken away from right under their noses and they not notice until it's too late. Look at Nazi Germany for the prior example. Hitler became a dictator because the people LET him. So did Stalin. And Castro. And Huisein. And countless others.

Musolini is the only time I can think of when a dictator rose to power against the will of the people.

"I support a ban of Assualt rifles and other fully automatic weapons, as well as explosives."

I'll agree with you and our gonvernement on banning explosives and fully automatic weapons to only people that have a federal class III firearms license. However the whole issue with assualt weapons is really truly very funny. It has nothing to do with the weapon or its functionability. It has to do with how it looks.

I used to use an AK with a 5 round clip to hunt dear in the bush when I was a hunter (a 300 mag at distance). There are hundreds if not thousands of hunters who use so called 'assualt weapons' as thier chosen hunting weapon. That is why you will never see an outright ban of semi-automatic assault rifles, because the gun control people want to say that an assualt weapon is a rifle that can shoot semi automatically and carry more than 10 rounds of ammo(millions of americans own a firearm under this definition,quite a big voting block to alienate) The people that actually own these guns know these are fully legal under the assault weapons ban as long as they were produced prior to 94. So with all of todays technology in safety that could benifit today's 'so called assualt weapons, Instead these noble people would rather keep the old style assualt weapons on the streets in place of letting people upgrade to a safer model. Makes complete sense to me.. its like saying were going to ban volkswagens that were built prior to 1990, knowing full well that the old ones get a hell of lot more worse gas mileage and more prone to injury than todays. Sensible laws still need to maintain a minimum of sense to be sensible

Okay, you have a point, your choice of weapon is a semi-auto AK. But, would you really be affected that much if you could trade in you 'assualt rifle' for a normal rifle or shotgun or handgun? People just don't need guns that have the capability to shoot several hundred rounds a minute.

Someone else wrote :>

"Okay, you have a point, your choice of weapon is a semi-auto AK. But, would you really be affected that much if you could trade in you 'assualt rifle' for a normal rifle or shotgun or handgun? People just don't need guns that have the capability to shoot several hundred rounds a minute."

I wrote:>

The misinformation that someone gave you is what I am against, Not people like you that truly believe in your cause. My so called 'assualt weapon' is a normal weapon, it fires one shot per one depression of the trigger, making it impossible to fire over a hundred rounds a minute (unless your trained to do so)This is the misinformation that I am and every legal gun owner is against. You see what I am saying?
Take any semi-auto rifle (some consider a assault weapon) and try to shoot more than 1 round per second, if you know what you are doing you may get a couple rounds off per every other second at best(thats 90 rounds a minute if lucky,also remember thats changing out clips to do so and not to worried about hitting a broadside of a barn, and the only way someone can get more than a hundred rounds a minute off with a semi-auto is by nursery firing it, and i wont get into that.

Look this is the way I have always looked at these freedoms in political situations, The religoius right wingers will want to control your body (abortion, medical marijuana) the enviro-left wingers want to control your objects (cars,guns, ect..) no matter how you look or shake it, it still comes down to one wanting control over another, and that as a basis goes against freedom itself. That is why I hope people will come to thier senses on freedoms, because If I were to force every belief in my system onto another person, than I would be considered a religous-enviro wacko. Tolerance is the key to everything, I like alot of things that my fellow americans on the right and left believe in, but its only when they force that belief onto another that I depart ways with either of them.

I believe any citizen that has not shown that they are a risk factor for crime (ie. not a convicted felon) should be able to own a gun (not a rocket launcher or a machine gun or anything outrageous). However, before buying their first weapon, a citizen should be required to either take a gun safety class or take some sort of test to prove they know how to safely and properly use a weapon.

I could go out and buy a gun right now if I wanted to. You know why I don't? I've never fired a weapon, never learned proper handling of a weapon, and would be more of a danger to myself than anyone else if I had one right now. Under no circumstances will a firearm be brought into my home until I, and everyone else in my home, have been instructed on the proper use of it. Make sense? I think so - and it doesn't keep anyone from getting a weapon except the people who don't have the intelligence to own one in the first place.

"I support a ban of Assualt rifles and other fully automatic weapons, as well as explosives."

I'll agree with you and our gonvernement on banning explosives and fully automatic weapons to only people that have a federal class III firearms license. However the whole issue with assualt weapons is really truly very funny. It has nothing to do with the weapon or its functionability. It has to do with how it looks.

I used to use an AK with a 5 round clip to hunt dear in the bush when I was a hunter (a 300 mag at distance). There are hundreds if not thousands of hunters who use so called 'assualt weapons' as thier chosen hunting weapon. That is why you will never see an outright ban of semi-automatic assault rifles, because the gun control people want to say that an assualt weapon is a rifle that can shoot semi automatically and carry more than 10 rounds of ammo(millions of americans own a firearm under this definition,quite a big voting block to alienate) The people that actually own these guns know these are fully legal under the assault weapons ban as long as they were produced prior to 94. So with all of todays technology in safety that could benifit today's 'so called assualt weapons, Instead these noble people would rather keep the old style assualt weapons on the streets in place of letting people upgrade to a safer model. Makes complete sense to me.. its like saying were going to ban volkswagens that were built prior to 1990, knowing full well that the old ones get a hell of lot more worse gas mileage and more prone to injury than todays. Sensible laws still need to maintain a minimum of sense to be sensibleYou leave out one important characteristic of an assault weapon, the detachable box magazine. Tell me what hunter needs that. Technology has already taken most of the 'sport' out of hunting, less and less skill is required, are you now saying the ability to reload quickly is essential to the sport? If you find it necessary to be able put alot of lead in the air rapidly to bring down your quarry I don't think much of you as a hunter. Almost every manufacturer of 'assault weapons' makes a version of their gun that is more suitable for hunting.

And people are allowed to upgrade their old assault type weapons to a newer safer weapon, your just pissed because they can't do it to another assault type weapon. I personally don't think much of hunters who use semi-auto weapons, they tend to have less or no skill and spray bullets whenever they see game. A bolt action weapon forces one to be patient, take your time, stalk your game and be a better shot.

No controls whatsoever is the best way.

No controls whatsoever is the best way.

Yes, and every American citizen should own a nuclear warhead.

Assualt weapons are good for home defence against multiple invaders.

Yes, and every American citizen should own a nuclear warhead.

No, I mean on firearms..... Let people own fully automatic M-16s, AK-74s, SAWs, RPKs, M60s... etc.

Assualt weapons are good for home defence against multiple invaders.
Which is why I support the ownership of fully automatic weapons by citizens.

Lost planet wrote:> "You leave out one important characteristic of an assault weapon, the detachable box magazine. Tell me what hunter needs that. Technology has already taken most of the 'sport' out of hunting, less and less skill is required, are you now saying the ability to reload quickly is essential to the sport? If you find it necessary to be able put alot of lead in the air rapidly to bring down your quarry I don't think much of you as a hunter. Almost every manufacturer of 'assault weapons' makes a version of their gun that is more suitable for hunting. And people are allowed to upgrade their old assault type weapons to a newer safer weapon, your just pissed because they can't do it to another assault type weapon. I personally don't think much of hunters who use semi-auto weapons, they tend to have less or no skill and spray bullets whenever they see game. A bolt action weapon forces one to be patient, take your time, stalk your game and be a better shot. "

The detachable box magazine isn't something I would say is needed for hunting either, its personal choice of what you want to own, and not what someone elses want you to own. We all know that the post ban sks's with a fixed 30 or the 10 round clip didnt make a bit of differnece because it was easily improvised that one could take one jab at the pin holding the fixed clip and insert a new one, then place the pin back. No matter what we do to try to restrict an item, our intelligence (or lack there of) will find a way around them (some legal some not).

The statement that I am pissed? I am actually happier now in my life than I have ever been, Its the people that wanted to control guns that are pissed, because they have seen that having the assualt weapons ban did absolutly nothing at all.

I agree with you on the fact of using a semi-auto to spray game or use more than the amount of bullets needed to create the desired outcome is utterly the most stupid thing I have ever heard of. I personally started to use my ak with a 5 round clip in place of my 30/30 lever action after running into a bear in a thicket of blackberry bushes. From there on when I would run into a bear or cat that was very close or threatening I would simply fire a quick burst of 2 shots into the ground to get the animal running in the oppisite of the direction I was going. The idea that a semi-auto is not accurate, i beg the differ by asking you to look at the service of my m-16a1 and a2 during my tenure of service to my country. One shot one kill can be obtained with any true firearm, the fact that there is criminals that use semi-auto's for thier own gain is of another problem with society, a problem with criminals

It's amazing how some people have such perverted perceptions of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution was not amended so that you could go hunting. It was for a much better reason. When the population is armed, it becomes very hard for the government to control them and take their rights away. Our founding fathers knew that. They were worried about the young republic falling back into monarchy. There is no reason to think our contry today cannot go the way of dictatorship---in fact it's already happening.

There hasn't been a crime commited with an legally purchased assault weapon in the past 70 years.

No, I mean on firearms..... Let people own fully automatic M-16s, AK-74s, SAWs, RPKs, M60s... etc.

I'll vote to let a competent citizen own whatever guns they want - as long as they haven't already committed felonies and can demonstrate knowledge of proper gun safety and use. But that's still some regulation.

"It's amazing how some people have such perverted perceptions of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution was not amended so that you could go hunting. It was for a much better reason. When the population is armed, it becomes very hard for the government to control them and take their rights away. Our founding fathers knew that. They were worried about the young republic falling back into monarchy. There is no reason to think our contry today cannot go the way of dictatorship---in fact it's already happening."

I agree and know that this is why our second ammendment is and forever will be on the books. The problem with reintroducing this fact, is that in a civilized free society it becomes moot, because there will always be people that will attack every single use you can come up with that does not harm another human. Hunting, target shooting, self defense, collecting, or just wanting to own a piece are just as legitimate reasons for every American to have the right to bear arms. It is a right, for whatever reason you want to practice that right, as long as that right does not go against the law.

If any guns should be regulated for the public, it is handguns. You rarely see any street violence commited with rifles or shotguns, because you can't carry them concealed. A shotgun is better for home defense, it will not overpenetrate and works great up close.

I agree with less restrictions on firearms. And I would like to say that not only is there no way you could get the second amedment repealed (look at the states, you need 2/3 to approve I think) but, any law that truly destroys/takes away the second amendment would probably spark a civil insurection.

"If any guns should be regulated for the public, it is handguns. You rarely see any street violence commited with rifles or shotguns, because you can't carry them concealed. A shotgun is better for home defense, it will not overpenetrate and works great up close."

You are right in every aspect of this argument, it is true that handguns are mainly used by criminals, but they are also already the most regulated and that is why it proves telling a criminal not to do something does nothing.

You can't outlaw guns because if you can get drugs in, why not guns. I would suggest making them much louder because a criminal may shoot you, but everyone on the block will hear it.

Kozmodiac, you're right, if gun regulation were about violent crime then the laws would focus entirely on handguns. But gun control isn't about crime. If it were, it would have focussed entirely on handguns, and been given up as a failed experiment decades ago.

When you get down do it, gun control in the US is about assuaging the jealousy and ignorant fear of the pussy vote. That is probably not the PC term for it, but why beat around the bush right?

Why banning or heavily regulating guns does not work (Quality sucks but the point is there)
If you can't understand after this please seek professional assistance (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=13138)

Repeal it? Why? It's already worthless. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment only applies to the militia, not private gun ownership. That's why they can have gun bans in D.C. and other cities.

Why banning or heavily regulating guns does not work (Quality sucks but the point is there)
If you can't understand after this please seek professional assistance (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=13138)
Simplistic and stupid. Most people don't carry guns (making the second point useless), and if the police force is strong enough, then there wouldn't be a problem about the criminals having guns in the first place.


Get it?

"Repeal it? Why? It's already worthless. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment only applies to the militia, not private gun ownership. That's why they can have gun bans in D.C. and other cities."

Ahh but who is the militia defined as? Every able bodied male age 18-48, It was ruled that malitia is in fact the people, as the people are in fact the citizens of the US. The reason why DC can have heavy regulations in this area further than say california or new york is because it is not protected by states rights. The Federalist papers (the basis of that supreme court ruling) explains this issue more thoroughly. That is why you can have a state such as california and new york that some will say unconstitutional as being fully constitutional under the provisions of states rights. They are only required to allow individuals to own a firearm, however they retain right to restrict what kind of firearm that shall be. That is why you have a majority of states such as Oregon, Arizona and such that you can walk into any gun show and walk right out it with a calico 100 round helical feed firearm. These states take the wording "shall not be infringed" to the furthest the law will allow, in both instances.

Guns don't kill people.......people kill people.

You can take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens, but that won't stop the law breakers from getting them. Then you have the bad guys with guns, and the good guys without them.

Not very smart.

PROOF:
Washington D.C. has the TIGHTEST gun control in the United States.
Washington D.C. has the HIGHEST murder rate per capita in the United States.

Case closed.

Guns don't kill people.......people kill people.

You can take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens, but that won't stop the law breakers from getting them. Then you have the bad guys with guns, and the good guys without them.

Not very smart.

PROOF:
Washington D.C. has the TIGHTEST gun control in the United States.
Washington D.C. has the HIGHEST murder rate per capita in the United States.

Case closed.
Washington D.C. is one of the POOREST areas in the United States.

Case closed.

What everyone has missed the point on is that the 2nd Amendment only provides citizens with the right to bear arms as part of a MILITIA. Read it, that is exactly what it says. Now, I have plenty of guns in my house, and my uncle has 2 automatic assault rifles. My old preacher had an anti-tank gun that he got in South America. I believe people should be allowed to have weapons. However, the 2nd Amendment does NOT permit this, except as part of a MILITIA. Only state laws actually protect the right of people to bear arms. To say the 2nd Amendment does is to twist the meaning of the Constitution itself.

The 2nd Amendment does not say that the states have the rights to militias.

But what it does say is that the people have the right to bear arms.

"I believe people should be allowed to have weapons. However, the 2nd Amendment does NOT permit this, except as part of a MILITIA."

Completly, and that is why it permits "the people to arm themselves and gather as a malitia at times of peace in preperation for a time of war." It in fact protects an individual's right to own a firearm, assuming they will utilize thier free will to join the malitia except in times of conscription. Thier is in actuallity many interpretations of this ammendment, and they all agree on one thing and that is "the malitia is the common citizenry,the people ".

As one of 'them librawls' some people like to refer to, I must profess that I am against banning guns.

As our (U.S.) war on drugs has so eloquently proven, banning something does not curb demand or supply, it only forces it underground and then the gov't. loses any/all regulatory control over it.

Security checks? Yes. Waiting periods? Yes. Total bans? No way... unless you wanted more crime.

Lost planet wrote:> "You leave out one important characteristic of an assault weapon, the detachable box magazine. Tell me what hunter needs that. Technology has already taken most of the 'sport' out of hunting, less and less skill is required, are you now saying the ability to reload quickly is essential to the sport? If you find it necessary to be able put alot of lead in the air rapidly to bring down your quarry I don't think much of you as a hunter. Almost every manufacturer of 'assault weapons' makes a version of their gun that is more suitable for hunting. And people are allowed to upgrade their old assault type weapons to a newer safer weapon, your just pissed because they can't do it to another assault type weapon. I personally don't think much of hunters who use semi-auto weapons, they tend to have less or no skill and spray bullets whenever they see game. A bolt action weapon forces one to be patient, take your time, stalk your game and be a better shot. "

The detachable box magazine isn't something I would say is needed for hunting either, its personal choice of what you want to own, and not what someone elses want you to own. We all know that the post ban sks's with a fixed 30 or the 10 round clip didnt make a bit of differnece because it was easily improvised that one could take one jab at the pin holding the fixed clip and insert a new one, then place the pin back. No matter what we do to try to restrict an item, our intelligence (or lack there of) will find a way around them (some legal some not).

The statement that I am pissed? I am actually happier now in my life than I have ever been, Its the people that wanted to control guns that are pissed, because they have seen that having the assualt weapons ban did absolutly nothing at all.

I agree with you on the fact of using a semi-auto to spray game or use more than the amount of bullets needed to create the desired outcome is utterly the most stupid thing I have ever heard of. I personally started to use my ak with a 5 round clip in place of my 30/30 lever action after running into a bear in a thicket of blackberry bushes. From there on when I would run into a bear or cat that was very close or threatening I would simply fire a quick burst of 2 shots into the ground to get the animal running in the oppisite of the direction I was going. The idea that a semi-auto is not accurate, i beg the differ by asking you to look at the service of my m-16a1 and a2 during my tenure of service to my country. One shot one kill can be obtained with any true firearm, the fact that there is criminals that use semi-auto's for thier own gain is of another problem with society, a problem with criminalsNowhere in my post did I state that a semi auto firearm is less accurate, my point is that the use of them tends to promote less accuracy by hunters, many of whom prefer the easier choice of putting a lot of lead in the air over taking the time to get one good shot. That is not meant to be a condemnation of everyone who uses a semi auto, just my personal observations on their use. I personally think restricting hunting to bolt action weapons would put more 'sport' back into it. As for your bear problem, many people I know carry a sidearm when hunting for such encounters, such as a .44 or .357. It allows you to pop off a few rapidly to scare such animals (or even drop them if there's no other option) and still carry a 'sporting' rifle

"My cold dead hands". If you want my guns, I suggest you bring plenty of people with you to take them. In other words, don't even think of repealing that amendment.

Simplistic and stupid. Most people don't carry guns (making the second point useless), and if the police force is strong enough, then there wouldn't be a problem about the criminals having guns in the first place.


Get it?
I get that you are putting all your weapons in the hands of the government, and out of citizens. I get that you're concentrating all the power in the hands of the ruling class. I get that you don't understand the reasoning behind the second amendment.

making multiple threads isn't going to help you when your cause is that weak.

You're right, it didn't. But your violent crime rate went up.
Actually, it didn't. And all crime is currently dropping apart from rape.

Actually, it didn't. And all crime is currently dropping apart from rape.

I guess these guys don't know what they're talking about, then:

http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001948.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1446260.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175111_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-UK-VIOLENT-CRIME-RATE-SOARING-name_page.html
http://www.ukcjweblog.org.uk/2004/07/22.html

Your overall crime rate is dropping, maybe, but your violent crime is going up.

Completly, and that is why it permits "the people to arm themselves and gather as a malitia at times of peace in preperation for a time of war." It in fact protects an individual's right to own a firearm, assuming they will utilize thier free will to join the malitia except in times of conscription. Thier is in actuallity many interpretations of this ammendment, and they all agree on one thing and that is "the malitia is the common citizenry,the people ".

Definitely. And for those of you who thing the militia refers to the national guard....well, I really don't think the drafters of the constitution had as much foresight as it would take to predict the formation of those units in the late 1800s.

I get that you are putting all your weapons in the hands of the government, and out of citizens. I get that you're concentrating all the power in the hands of the ruling class. I get that you don't understand the reasoning behind the second amendment.

That is what a milita is for. If anyone tried to pull that crap here the army wouldn't obey anyway.

if you want to kill someone, use a SHOTGUN.

i would oppose repealing the 2nd ammendment for a few reasons

1) i like it.

2) banning guns would turn millions of law abiding citizens into criminal "with one stroke of the pen". this would be wrong. its too late to expect that you can collect up a few hundred million guns from the citizens of this country and its even more foolish to expect that you can get criminals to give up their guns. they would be come extremely valuable "with one stroke of the pen"

3) this is america, its a dangerous country, people should have the right to keep a gun at home for protection. or at least to shoot the damned skunks that get into the trash every night

Just a little tid bit to add also, since the drug war, the price of drugs (this is profit to the drug dealer) is now equal or greater to the price of gold in its weight oz to oz.

Do it to guns and it creates an even bigger black market than there already is. Man the genius these people hold is amazing, working off of emotion in stead of logic and sense makes me wonder how these same people can get into thier car in the morning knowing that cars are responsible for so so many more deaths and injuries than guns...

It comes down to because I wouldn't excercise this freedom my self than nobody else should even be able to make a decision on it for themselves. They think they deserve to make up everyones mind for them.... makes sense to me, since they are so smart and all LMAO!!

The 2nd amendment (paraphrased)

The citezenry of the United States of America is permitted the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia.

Now, that's not entirly accurate, but it gets all the main parts of the 2nd amendment. Following this amendment, it give US citizens the right to have any sort of arm (gun, knife, nuclear warhead) only for the purpose of being in a well regulated state militia .

What does this mean? Well, first, you have to be in a militia to own a gun. Second, that gun is regulated by the federal government, the only outside force that can regulate such militas.

As we can see, the second amendment has been twisted to give all people the right to bear arms, which was not its original intent. If you want to go back and look at the founders, the did not want another monarchy, but conversly, they were also afraid of 'too much democracy'. Because of this, they installed certain phrases that were meant to make it impossible for the people to revolt against the government. They saw the failure of the articles of confederation and remedied that by creating a strong central government with the constitution. The 2nd amendment was not questioned then because nearly every one who owned a gun was in a militia. But now, there are very few militia left and millions of gun owners. See how the amendment has been twisted?

thats not the way *I* read it, blarg

it seems to be that it says that
since it is in the interest of the country to have a well regulated militia, (which wouldnt be active at all times eh?) it is necessary for the populace to have the right to keep arms in their homes.

that way, if things need doing, a militia can be created in a matter of days since everyone already has all the necessary weaponry.

BLARGistania wrote:>

"The 2nd amendment (paraphrased) The citezenry of the United States of America is permitted the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia. Now, that's not entirly accurate, but it gets all the main parts of the 2nd amendment. Following this amendment, it give US citizens the right to have any sort of arm (gun, knife, nuclear warhead) only for the purpose of being in a well regulated state militia . What does this mean? Well, first, you have to be in a militia to own a gun. Second, that gun is regulated by the federal government, the only outside force that can regulate such militas. As we can see, the second amendment has been twisted to give all people the right to bear arms, which was not its original intent. If you want to go back and look at the founders, the did not want another monarchy, but conversly, they were also afraid of 'too much democracy'. Because of this, they installed certain phrases that were meant to make it impossible for the people to revolt against the government. They saw the failure of the articles of confederation and remedied that by creating a strong central government with the constitution. The 2nd amendment was not questioned then because nearly every one who owned a gun was in a militia. But now, there are very few militia left and millions of gun owners. See how the amendment has been twisted? "

Sir or mam, please refer to the federalist papers (since both sides the american left and right wing agree that federal law is interpreted through them) The second ammendment states: "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."

Under numerous court rulings (based under our federalst papers) the second ammendment does in fact "extend to the individual through the guise of the people" The second ammendment was put in place to ensure each and every american in peace and war do in fact have a right to own a firearm. Which kind of firearm this is has and always has been left up to the states, as is currently at this time and has not changed since 1791.

Also the clause of "necesary to the security of a free state", is as plain as day in the federalst papers as meaning that state's rights extend just shy of the right to a declaration of war. States rights is something that you are not understanding, the reason we have 50 states with 50 differnet gun laws is because it is the states rights to do so as long as they remain in the boundries of our constitution. You have 50 state constitutions that back immediatly everything in our federal constitution along with a specific wording such as "Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power" . What you have stated has no case law in US history agreeing with it. Please read up on the US constitution, then the federalist papers and then the state's Constitution that you reside in and then please share with us your findings.

The Second Amendment doesn't even mention the rights of a militia at all.

Rather, it states the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In the Federalst papers 3rd from last paragraph at end of paragraph in #85 in the concluding remarks by alexander hamilton state the following : "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."

This has been used in just about every issue the federal government has tried to take control of the states with, and each time the ruling will refer to this passage as an overstepping of federal authority. This is called states rights, if you dont like it, try to change it. But I must warn you with 50 states unified for this one document is a feat no less impossible than a terrorist using violence to get an american to step aside. It will not happen we are to independant and have to much love for our country to just step aside and let someone else control our freedoms.

The 2nd amendment (paraphrased)

The citezenry of the United States of America is permitted the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia.

Now, that's not entirly accurate, but it gets all the main parts of the 2nd amendment. Following this amendment, it give US citizens the right to have any sort of arm (gun, knife, nuclear warhead) only for the purpose of being in a well regulated state militia .

What does this mean? Well, first, you have to be in a militia to own a gun. Second, that gun is regulated by the federal government, the only outside force that can regulate such militas.

As we can see, the second amendment has been twisted to give all people the right to bear arms, which was not its original intent. If you want to go back and look at the founders, the did not want another monarchy, but conversly, they were also afraid of 'too much democracy'. Because of this, they installed certain phrases that were meant to make it impossible for the people to revolt against the government. They saw the failure of the articles of confederation and remedied that by creating a strong central government with the constitution. The 2nd amendment was not questioned then because nearly every one who owned a gun was in a militia. But now, there are very few militia left and millions of gun owners. See how the amendment has been twisted?

You need to read up on the founders of this nation. Every one was AGAINST having a strong central goverment, for that is exactly what they were trying to get away from --ENGLAND.

Read the Federalist Papers before spouting such drivel again.

Every able bodied male WAS the militia. That means all the people in today's vernacular. The founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to stand as defense against the government, to not be able to take the rest of our rights away, as a strong central government always does.

You need to read up on the founders of this nation. Every one was AGAINST having a strong central goverment, for that is exactly what they were trying to get away from --ENGLAND.

Read the Federalist Papers before spouting such drivel again.

Every able bodied male WAS the militia. That means all the people in today's vernacular. The founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to stand as defense against the government, to not be able to take the rest of our rights away, as a strong central government always does.

I think you missed an important part of United States History old boy. The Founding fathers, the guys that wrote the constitution, had already seen the Articles of Confederation fail spectacularly. With the exception of 'weak government' and the Northwest land ordinance, the Articles were basically the most pathetic form of goverment anyone had seen. The Articles gave almost unlimited power to the states and basically none to the federal government. The result was that states had their own currencies and would not accept currencies from other states, trade was almost non-existant due to bad feelings between states, and the federal government could not pay off any debts because states refused to pay taxes.

After observing these failures, the framers decided that the nation needed a strong central government to counter-act this. Thus, the framers were not moving away from centralized government, but rather towards it. The founders were afraid of the idea of 'too much democracy' or, giving too much power to the people of the United States. This is why, originally, the Senators were elected by state senates, not the people, the President is elected by electoral college and not popular vote, and government retains the right to tax. After all, the power to tax is the power to destroy. This is all not to mention the fact that Marbury v. Madison decreed the Constitution supreme law of the land, not allowing any states the right to bypass it.

With regards to the federalists: Originally, they did not even want to put in a bill of rights, they felt it would compromise the constitution that they were trying so hard to put together. Unfortunatly for them (and you all had better thank these guys) Sam Adams and Patrick Henry would not accept the Constitution until it had a bill of rights. They were dangerous political opponents, carrying much weight. So, in the end, the federalists had to include what they hated most: the bill of rights including the second amendment. That was the only way the Constitution would get approved. So, in response, the founding fathers didn't want to rights we have from the bill of rights, they thought it would compromise the security of our nation.

Its also a Sir.

BLARGistania wrote:>
"After observing these failures, the framers decided that the nation needed a strong central government to counter-act this. Thus, the framers were not moving away from centralized government, but rather towards it. The founders were afraid of the idea of 'too much democracy' or, giving too much power to the people of the United States. This is why, originally, the Senators were elected by state senates, not the people, the President is elected by electoral college and not popular vote,"

Right on! The majority of your post is exactly how it is written as plain as day in our federlist papers. I don't understand how people don't comprehend it the same way. The portion I exerpted is also a complete fact explained inside them, however you and I see the electoral college as differnet tools for the governement possibly or I may of misunderstood your intentions? The electoral college most indeed helps the states compared to a complete central government via a direct election through popular vote. By ensuring equality from a small to a large state, requiring no more special priviledges to be forced upon the smaller state that the larger state would like or wouldnt like, by ensuring a chance at fillibustering the senate over the house.

I agree that our founders were brilliant in reserving some freedoms to not be allowed through a majority of the populace but instead by the populace of ones state, and still allowing for some restrictions on the national level when it contained a possibility of conflicting with national interests and security. This was the one and only way to have a strong central government without micro-managing ones state.

The main objective of our founders was in deed to not allow one state to declare war upon another state, also for the obvious economic reasons you pointed out with trade and the damage that could be caused by having numerous types of bank notes out there. We would then be competing against no one but our ownselves. Not to productive if your in search of a stable country.

The deal with the federalists were no doubt that they wanted a more central governement over the states, but knowing that it would be next to impossible to make the states budge, they caved in to allowing the addition of our bill of rights into the Constitution. This single last sentence that I and you are aware of, is the very reason why we do not have a monarchy or dictatorship or oligarchy ect.. to this day. I wished more people would understand just how close our country was to becoming something the complete oppisite of it is now. Your comprehension in this is what every American needs to aquire, so we don't take so much for granted for in the freedoms we have today could of never of been.

I remember so much outrage over the euro, but if you actually think about it, (I beleive time will prove this) it could be the most single influential thing economically that ever sweeps that region.

Faithful, I think we're pretty much on the same page here. In regards to guns: I support the right to own guns, I just believe in regulation to make sure that people don't get fully automatic weapons or explosives (such as C4, C8 etc. . .)

Contrary to popular beleif I to beleive allowing our common citizen access to such devistating explosives would be an end of freedom inside this country. The machine guns, well I am with you for the most part, I am mainly speaking on behalf of my fellow vets and disabled vets that utilize these machine guns every year at the machine gun shoots set up through out our country, for entertainment and educational purposes only. During these shoots we allow any American to have at it in a safe designated area against a water jug, watermelon or old car ect..for a nice crisp $5-10 bill. Well sometimes a wee bit more when we bring out the heavier guns. The owners of these weapons have been checked out extensivly and well there usualy is not to many people willing to give up an arm or leg or lung (or life) for thier country and then go back only to do it harm ( I pray not, for every country).

I did get a little over board earlier, something I don't let happen to often these days, for that sir I apoligise. Have a good one!

[SIZE=4][COLOR=Indigo][FONT=System]When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, it is highly doubtful that its framers could have foreseen how deadly and how powerful arms have become.




It's doubtful they could have realized that the free speech would be used by communist agitators and pedophiles who publish "How to seduce a young boy" manuals. Or the actual name of the manual published by the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) "The Rape and Escape Manual" this was talked about on Fox News a while back, "Is it free speech, or aiding and abetting". A man used the manual's instructions to kidnap, rape, and then murder a young boy.


There is a difference though, guns are objects, only as good or bad as the user. "How-to" manuals on crime, hold no real value for the general public. Only Law Enforcement officials that might want to know how the criminals are thinking.


Guns today will kill you just as dead as an old Revolutionary War mustket would.