Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your founding fathers had blunderbusses in mind, not AK47s. Marauding natives not kids in schools.
Laws come and they go. It used to be illegal for a woman to drive or vote.
If the well intentioned gentlemen of the 18th century could look forward in time to a mess like Sandy Hook, do you think they would have amended the amendment?
IMO the OP, is saying gun free zones mean free targets for whack jobs. Why do they always demand collateral damage. Just end their own pain, don't take out innocents. Just sickening really.
IMO the OP, is saying gun free zones mean free targets for whack jobs. Why do they always demand collateral damage. Just end their own pain, don't take out innocents. Just sickening really.
Whenever someone complains about "gun free zones" you know they`re under the control of the NRA. Always looking for more ways to sell guns of course.
I was guaranteed an individual right by the second amendment. No other clarification was needed.
Actually, the "Whataver I Think" school of Constitutional interpretation, while having a number of members, carries exactly no weight at all. You have rights as the state defines, assigns, and defends them for you. No others.
1. Government war on drugs. FAIL.
2. Government war on cancer. FAIL.
3. Government war in Vietnam, Iraq, elsewhere. FAIL.
4. Government war on terrorism (a tactic btw). FAIL
5. Government war on poverty. FAIL
6. Government war on energy independence. FAIL
7. Government war on violence against women and children. FAIL
The ability of the government to confiscate, gather up over 200 million guns (likely more), in an effective way is likely to fail--as usual.
We do not need more laws, more policies, we need better people and that isn't going to happen either.
Your founding fathers had blunderbusses in mind, not AK47s. Marauding natives not kids in schools.
Laws come and they go. It used to be illegal for a woman to drive or vote.
If the well intentioned gentlemen of the 18th century could look forward in time to a mess like Sandy Hook, do you think they would have amended the amendment?
The second amendment was written a long time ago, but we've had hundreds of years to change it and we have collectively chosen not to do so.
The Constitution can be modified as necessary to fit our needs. When we wanted to give women the right to vote, we changed the Constitution by adding the 19th amendment. Maybe someday there will be overwhelming support and the second amendment or the first amendment will be repealed, but it hasn't happened yet. And I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, let's not forget that. You may not like what it says, but the correct approach is to modify the document, not ignore it.
I have read a great deal more of what the founders wrote than just the stupid no-context-at-all soundbites collected at untold numbers of whacko websites. Then there is all that odd history and custom of the time to take into account. Let me know when you get caught up on that. By then of course, you will understand that writers of the period used the phrase "to bear arms" almost exclusively within a military context. When they wanted to refer to personal habits, they used the phrase "to carry weapons". Interesting, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
There is lots more though unfortunately most of the gunnie quotes are phony.
Their whole thesis is phony. As currently constructed, they are a collection of crackpots and liars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
But whatever...we in are wisdom have decided that an armed citizenry is in our best interest. I presume their are good rationales for this though I admit they may be difficult to find with specificity.
An armed citizenry is in our best interests? Who decided that, when, and on what basis? As a result of the needs and peculiar politics of the time, an otherwise all but inscrutable amendment made it into the Bill of Rights. It is outmoded in terms of its original purposes and rationale, but as the result of it, you can today keep a weapon for self-defense in your own home, and plausibly for some other traditionally lawful purposes. I know some are drawn to the bright, shiny objects of spurs and horsies and guns and saloons but Gary Cooper was not one of the founding fathers and never served a term on the Supreme Court..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
So given that we are going there we might as well do it right. And, in my mind, that strongly supports a relatively well armed citizenry with few limits on the rights to carry.
That's an interesting opinion, and you're welcome to it. There is nothing however to commend it to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
a poorly armed citizenry simple makes the arms available to the bad side while not spreading it widely to the good.
That's kind of simplistic, Marshall Dillion. It isn't the farmers versus the ranchers here, nor the gunslingers versus the peace-loving townspeople. Putting guns into the hands of everybody outside their own homes accomplishes nothing but the creation of more Trayvon Martins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
Florida pretty conclusively demonstrated there are no bad effects from wide spread citizen carry.
Not at all conclusively. You've been bamboozled if you actually believed that when you wrote it. Which I'll admit is unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
There are over 10,000 victims of firearms. That is the price for the capability. Suicides and accidents to but not really restricted to hand guns.
There are more than 30,000 gunshot deaths every year and hundreds of thousands of gunshot injuries. Because of the internal damage done by tumbling, shattering and ricocheting bullets, treating gunshot wounds is an extremely painstaking and therefore expensive proposition. Simply reducing the number of gunshot wounds in this country would be a far better way to reduce overall health care costs than tort reform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
So we have made our choice and need to proceed. Why not do it right?
I'm sure everyone would favor "doing things right", but you haven't been right about anything to this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
