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.
Bear Arms, means:
It means you as an individual can carry any weapon you wish.
Correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Bear Arms, means:
It means you can use that weapon against anyone trying to remove it from you or harm you in anyway.
Nope not under the 2nd that's under the right of self defense, it's covered under the 9th and there is a longstanding tradition (and UN recognized human right) of the right to self defense
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Bear Arms, means:
It means you can defend yourself against all attacks.
Same as the last statement, covered by the right of self defense. You should have read and understood my statement about conflating two issues, owning is not using and using is not owning. The 2nd doesn't protect the right of self defense, it protects some instrument that may be used in a self defense situation, that's all.
Sorry and all, we're ideologically on the same side of the gun debate, I'm just correcting your confusion of firearms and self defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Bear Arms, means:
It has already been redefined! Sheriffs tried to disarm the populations and it was found unconstitutional.
1934, congress passed a firearms ACT. that was the first redefinition, cities banning open carry, then banning conceal carry, then banning all guns within the city limits. Now the federal government wants to take full control over our guns. There have been many bills brought into legislatures in the past 100 years.
Whether the 1934 NFA is constitutional or not is open to debate, and not a topic for the thread. I happen to believe it is not constitutionally correct, but that's my opinion, I also happen to believe that under Miller the 1934 exempts itself from the regulation of current military hardware given the Miller decision convicted Miller (who was dead at the time of conviction) for owning a short barrel shotgun because it was not a weapon necessary for the good working order of a militia. Under those criteria, an M-16 would be considered a weapon necessary for the good working order of a militia (it's standard issue) and thus exempt from the 1934 regs (and all subsequent regs based on the '34NFA)
Cities were banning carry in Tombstone AZ in 1881 carry of handguns was prohibited under city ordinance, it led to the Gunfight at the OK Corral that's only one example of regulation prior to 1934. Indeed it was not until McDonald that the 2nd Amendment was legally ratified against the states, prior to that the States had as they did with all of the bill of rights selectively ratified those amendments. Indeed the 14th was as much to give former slaves their right to bear arms as anything else, since under equal protection law, if a white person could own a firearm, so could a black person, so if that state had a state constitutional right to bear arms it must be applied fairly (both to whites and blacks). Only since McDonald can they no longer accept that the 2nd is only applicable to the Federal Government but also applies to the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Bear Arms, means:
No one will ever get away with murder. The thing is, it is becoming harder and harder to get away with defending one's self, without being labelled as a criminal.
No one will get away with murder, because there are no grounds for any rights conflict between person A's right to life and person B's right to use a firearm. There is no constitutionally or otherwise protected right to use a firearm only a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear.
Whether someone is tried and convicted of being a criminal, is entirely different to someone being labelled a criminal. One is a legal outcome, the other is a public opinion. Please show where it has become more difficult to defend yourself under self defense law.
If you can provide specific evidence from the past 20 years of specific restrictions on the lawful employment of firearms during the act of self defense I may agree with your point. You may have a tough job, because I cannot think of any legislation that references self defense also referencing firearms. Yes there have been many restrictions on what firearms can be possessed, and some loosening of those restrictions too, however that's orthogonal to self defense. Two entirely different legal concepts, you can legally defend yourself with any object you possess (even illegal ones), however whether there will be a subsequent trial, and or conviction would depend on whether a prosecutor, grand jury or trial jury found your actions reasonable, for example the drug dealer who shot and killed two rival dealers under self defense, found not guilty of murder, convicted of drug and firearm offenses because at the time he acted he was defending himself, thus no murder charge, but was in possession of drugs, and an illegally acquired and owned firearm.
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,852,669 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Quite a different place back in the 1800's and women were second citizens, I think her statements have more to do with women's rights than anyting else
You might want to read about Annie Oakley a bit. There are several good books on her life.
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,852,669 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
I respect those people a hell of a lot more than I do the gun fondlers on this board who think guns are the solution to problems and are toys to be collected so they can show off to their friends and try to impress anonymous Internet strangers, believe that dead six-year-olds are collateral damage in the fight for "freeeeeeedum," and believe that all gun victims should shut up and not exercise their First Amendment rights to get control of the carnage because "they're toooooo emotional, wahhhhh."
I would bet that most, if not all, of the people in the links provided believe the same way that responsible law abiding firearms enthusiasts believe in their rights to own firearms and the Second Amendment. You might want to check out their biography's.
Then according to your definition of gun fondlers the folks in the links are gun fondlers.
I would bet that most, if not all, of the people in the links provided believe the same way that responsible law abiding firearms enthusiasts believe in their rights to own firearms and the Second Amendment. You might want to check out their biography's.
Then according to your definition of gun fondlers the folks in the links are gun fondlers.
I do believe I described specific "firearms enthusiasts" and specific beliefs in my post. Hmmm… going back to look … yep! I did.
Quote:
who think guns are the solution to problems and are toys to be collected so they can show off to their friends and try to impress anonymous Internet strangers, believe that dead six-year-olds are collateral damage in the fight for "freeeeeeedum," and believe that all gun victims should shut up and not exercise their First Amendment rights to get control of the carnage because "they're toooooo emotional, wahhhhh."
Now you get to tell me how you know what all those people in your links believe.
I do believe I described specific "firearms enthusiasts" and specific beliefs in my post. Hmmm… going back to look … yep! I did.
Now you get to tell me how you know what all those people in your links believe.
I'll wait.
In other words you don't really decide between someone being a plain old "gun enthusiast" and your most hated "evil gun fondler" until you need to want to spew some ignorant hate against guns. Anyone who points how how ignorant and hypocritical your beliefs are is a "gun fondler" right?
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,852,669 times
Reputation: 885
“It’s not the tool that’s the problem,” continued Gray. “Every community has cruel people. If you take guns away, it’s not going to stop. A gun is not going to go off on its own. Someone needs to pull the trigger."
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,852,669 times
Reputation: 885
"Yet Hancock is still a member of the NRA. He holds the Second Amendment in high regard. He started a shooting academy in Georgia with his father, and he hopes to bring youth into his program, teach them respect and discipline. He knows shooting is his livelihood, and the Olympics are by far his biggest chance at exposure, and the Colorado shooting will inevitably cast a shadow over USA Shooting, however they do at these Olympics."
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.