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.
And what would be the point? I don't know if you understand this but the government exist because of taxes. Why would the government slit its own throat?
Imagine that...
The point would be to keep itself in power, even if only just a little longer? Self-preservation instincts. And, there'd always be tons of people who still paid taxes, who still obeyed the government just because they're not ballsy enough to resist.
The point would be to keep itself in power, even if only just a little longer? Self-preservation instincts. And, there'd always be tons of people who still paid taxes, who still obeyed the government just because they're not ballsy enough to resist.
So the American people would keep paying their federal taxes while watching it bomb US cities? You people really do live in fantasy land.
So the American people would keep paying their federal taxes while watching it bomb US cities? You people really do live in fantasy land.
Wouldn't you be scared out of your mind if the city down the interstate to the west or east got blown to bits? Face it, you would. Individual Americans have little to no balls.
Not to mention the 2nd Amendment specifically says, "well-regulated militia". The National Guard fits the definition, not some hicks in Alabama.
So you are saying that the second amendment pertains only to those serving in a militia right? So it should read: “A well-regulated professional standing army (or National Guard) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That sentence would bewilder any honest reader. He’d ask why such unlike elements were combined in one sentence. It makes no sense.
The first problem with the militia interpretation is that the amendment speaks of a right and, of course, the amendment appears in the Bill of Rights. (Powers with respect to the militia are enumerated in Articles I and II of the Constitution.) No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for government. This is an untenable position of arguing that while the Framers used the term “the people” to mean individuals in the First (the right to assemble), Fourth (the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects), Ninth (unenumerated rights), and Tenth (reserved powers) Amendments, they suddenly used the same term to mean “the States” in the Second. That makes no sense.
Heller case.
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
Furthermore, the idea that the people didn't have a individual right to own a gun when the Constitution was written is ludicrous. Simple common sense logic at that time, if you didn't own a gun you didn't eat. People hunted for their food. If you didn't own a gun, you couldn't protect your property. If the individual didn't own a gun, then there would not be a "well regulated militia".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan
The point of banning guns is to protect other citizen's safety. Adam Lanza could not have killed (as many) innocent children with a knife..
How about a homemade bomb to blow the school up? And of course it's impossible to buy any banned or illegal product in this country
And what would be the point? I don't know if you understand this but the government exist because of taxes. Why would the government slit its own throat?
Imagine that...
Governments exist because we long decided being nomads wasn't cutting it....
So you are saying that the second amendment pertains only to those serving in a militia right? So it should read: “A well-regulated professional standing army (or National Guard) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That sentence would bewilder any honest reader. He’d ask why such unlike elements were combined in one sentence. It makes no sense.
The first problem with the militia interpretation is that the amendment speaks of a right and, of course, the amendment appears in the Bill of Rights. (Powers with respect to the militia are enumerated in Articles I and II of the Constitution.) No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for government. This is an untenable position of arguing that while the Framers used the term “the people” to mean individuals in the First (the right to assemble), Fourth (the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects), Ninth (unenumerated rights), and Tenth (reserved powers) Amendments, they suddenly used the same term to mean “the States” in the Second. That makes no sense.
Furthermore, the idea that the people didn't have a individual right to own a gun when the Constitution was written is ludicrous. Simple common sense logic at that time, if you didn't own a gun you didn't eat. People hunted for their food. If you didn't own a gun, you couldn't protect your property. If the individual didn't own a gun, then there would not be a "well regulated militia".
And what about our modern times.... With our supermarkets, law.enforcement, armies, welfare, etc....
And what about our modern times.... With our supermarkets, law.enforcement, armies, welfare, etc....
Yep, you can't just use the Founders' original intent to base all laws off. I'm sure they envisioned that arms technology would advance, but I doubt they envisioned nuclear bombs, stealth bombers, and main battle tanks that are basically invincible unless you have dedicated anti-tank missiles or mines.
And what about our modern times.... With our supermarkets, law.enforcement, armies, welfare, etc....
It still applies in our modern times.. Law enforcement simply can't protect you. They are there to investigate after the fact. If someone robs or kills you, they show up later to write a report and see if just perhaps they can solve who did it. If you think that law enforcement is any form of protection from violence for you, then you are naive and an excellent target. Our military is not there to protect you from anything other than foreign powers.
And what about our modern times.... With our supermarkets, law.enforcement, armies, welfare, etc....
Ah so you are saying that there is no need for a second amendment because it is now somehow obsolete. Ok, there is an amending process to the constitution. You will need 2/3rds of Congress and then 3/4ths of the States to make it pass.. Get right on it
Oh, and if that actually ever did happen, how do you propose removing the 300 million guns from the hands of law abiding citizens (because criminals wont ever turn theirs in)? Furthermore, how would you then control the black market in selling guns.
It still applies in our modern times.. Law enforcement simply can't protect you. They are there to investigate after the fact. If someone robs or kills you, they show up later to write a report and see if just perhaps they can solve who did it. If you think that law enforcement is any form of protection from violence for you, then you are naive and an excellent target. Our military is not there to protect you from anything other than foreign powers.
And I certainly believe one should have a reasonable means to protect oneself and property. However, guns are less useful in the 21st century for protection than the 19th century. Furthermore, the notions that more guns are more safe is incorrect.
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.
