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.
The 2nd Amendment is clear ... "Shall not be infringed" ....
The Second also mentions something about a 'well-regulated militia'.
The only 'militia' I can think of would be the National Guard.
Unless, of course, all gun owners belong to their local militia and adhere to guidelines, practices, drills, etc., in true 'militia' fashion. What are the regulations of this militia all gun owners belong to?
Is that what you do? Do militias nation-wide keep in contact with each other so, in case they are needed, all members know what to do?
I am a liberal and a supporter of all of the 2nd Amendment. The phrase "in a well regulated Militia" modifies the "shall not be infringed". As a member of the Militia, because of my citizenship, I do not want firearms possession by people unqualified for the Militia like criminals or homicidal maniacs. I also would not want to be around people that do not know how to safely use their guns.
I agree with the background checks for criminals or crazies. I would also agree with requiring training. I propose the basic firearms training including self defense as well as marksmanship be taught in every high school as part of the sports or citizenship/social studies/history programs. I would like to see more citizens carrying firearms any place they have a legal right to be.
In our current situation where none of these requirements are needed to possess a gun I also see the need for much more effective protection of our innocents that we have recklessly placed unprotected in “gun free zones”. As shown in several incidents we still have armed criminals and, most unfortunately clever adolescent crazies capable of obtaining firearms from a supposedly secure locked safe, and using them in a deranged, but to them perfectly sensible, killing of innocent adults and children. We have a moral duty to protect the innocents and we always have.
I do not believe that restrictions on types of guns (assault weapons) or the accessories (high capacity magazines) will do anything but make our society even more dangerous for peaceful people. As I consider the principal function of an armed citizenry (Militia) is individual self defense I do not approve of any of these restrictions including the absurdity of the 1934 Federal law’s limitations on short shotguns, bullet sizes or operating mechanisms.
As far as my thoughts on the rest of the Constitution are concerned I do not consider it a Bible with absolute revealed truth. Our Constitution is an amendable document setting out the basic rules of our civilization. It is, as our courts have shown, open to interpretation. FWIW – I took an oath many decades ago to defend the Constitution of the United States of America when I joined the Navy. I am still defending that ideal.
Has anyone ever accidentally shot and killed someone with freedom of speech? You are asking to have free range with deadly weapons, I think it is only common sense to have proper training and background checks on gun purchases.
I guess you could say you can also do background checks with freedom of speech and ignore that person if you like.
As for if the safety classes should be free or not, that should be a States issue if they wish to cover that cost or not, I think the only free training the Federal Government should offer is if you sign up for the military because that would classify as your training.
Yes, they have!!! Way too many times.
Look up mass suicide. Just recently, some reporters triggered a suicide of a nurse. How about LA Riots? Blair Mountain Riots?
I am a liberal and a supporter of all of the 2nd Amendment. The phrase "in a well regulated Militia" modifies the "shall not be infringed". As a member of the Militia, because of my citizenship, I do not want firearms possession by people unqualified for the Militia like criminals or homicidal maniacs. I also would not want to be around people that do not know how to safely use their guns.
I agree with the background checks for criminals or crazies. I would also agree with requiring training. I propose the basic firearms training including self defense as well as marksmanship be taught in every high school as part of the sports or citizenship/social studies/history programs. I would like to see more citizens carrying firearms any place they have a legal right to be.
In our current situation where none of these requirements are needed to possess a gun I also see the need for much more effective protection of our innocents that we have recklessly placed unprotected in “gun free zones”. As shown in several incidents we still have armed criminals and, most unfortunately clever adolescent crazies capable of obtaining firearms from a supposedly secure locked safe, and using them in a deranged, but to them perfectly sensible, killing of innocent adults and children. We have a moral duty to protect the innocents and we always have.
I do not believe that restrictions on types of guns (assault weapons) or the accessories (high capacity magazines) will do anything but make our society even more dangerous for peaceful people. As I consider the principal function of an armed citizenry (Militia) is individual self defense I do not approve of any of these restrictions including the absurdity of the 1934 Federal law’s limitations on short shotguns, bullet sizes or operating mechanisms.
As far as my thoughts on the rest of the Constitution are concerned I do not consider it a Bible with absolute revealed truth. Our Constitution is an amendable document setting out the basic rules of our civilization. It is, as our courts have shown, open to interpretation. FWIW – I took an oath many decades ago to defend the Constitution of the United States of America when I joined the Navy. I am still defending that ideal.
One of the most reasonable responses I've seen so far.
I am a liberal and a supporter of all of the 2nd Amendment. The phrase "in a well regulated Militia" modifies the "shall not be infringed". As a member of the Militia, because of my citizenship, I do not want firearms possession by people unqualified for the Militia like criminals or homicidal maniacs. I also would not want to be around people that do not know how to safely use their guns.
No it doesn't. If it did, it would read "the right of the militia to..." not "the right of the people."
So, it would be okay for the Federal Government to make the training mandatory, but you think the State Government should have to foot the bill for it?
The individual who wants to own a gun should pay for any training.
Why should ANY government pay for it?
Colbert asked this question to Piers Morgan after Morgan spoke out about the 2nd Amendment. I got a kick out of this video where Colbert had to hand Morgan at least three Constitutions so he could read the thing.
He called attention to the fact that the UK does not have a written Constitution or a Second Amendment and Morgan's answer had to be that we don't have any guns followed by the fact they do have 40 or 50 shootings each year. Maybe Morgan is very liberal in thought since he didn't seem to understand what he had said.
roy, you do know colbert is playing a character and is a comedy?
the population and gun deaths of england are nothing compared to the US.
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.
The other part of the 2nd Amendment
