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.
While I could pick apart your entire post, I'm going to focus on Number 2. Firearms owners have been compromising with anti-gunners since 1934. It has been shown over and over again that those compromises a) had little effect on criminal activity and b) emboldened the anti-gunners to reach for even more bans. Please explain why firearms owners should compromise any more.
actually long before that. remember that tombstone arizona was a gun free town for more than 100 years after wyatt earp was marshal there. and many other western towns were also gun free zones. you had to check your guns with the sheriff or the marshal, and collect them when you left town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraBenNemsi
One thing is for sure: Many, many more will die because of this amendment. And in the end it's because of money. Not freedom.
sorry, you can eliminate the second amendment from the constitution today, and make all guns illegal tomorrow, and there will still be people dying by gunshot ten years from now because you cannot eliminate all guns from the world, which is what you would have to do. because understand criminals do not follow the law, which is why they are criminals.
and besides, you dont need a gun to kill a lot of people, all you need is a chemistry book.
While I could pick apart your entire post, I'm going to focus on Number 2. Firearms owners have been compromising with anti-gunners since 1934. It has been shown over and over again that those compromises a) had little effect on criminal activity and b) emboldened the anti-gunners to reach for even more bans. Please explain why firearms owners should compromise any more.
We just need to institute reasonable comprehensive gun control and mitigate the corrosive societal effect of paranoid extremist conservative mental midget gun worship.
We just need to institute reasonable comprehensive gun control and mitigate the corrosive societal effect of paranoid extremist conservative mental midget gun worship.
what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The part where any person with a pulse can figure out that completely unregulated gun proliferation is obvious idiocy. This is why we have courts that interpret the constitution and don't try to merely take it literally.
But also, if you do want to get literal, the Founding Fathers made a distinction in what they wrote: "people" and "the people." "The people" was used in context of citizens as a group; not individual people. Understood in this manner, the direct interpretation of the second amendment is that it justified the existence of militias. That's how we came to have the National Guard separate from the other military branches.
But courts have interpreted the second amendment as applying to individual rights as well. And that's all well and good, but they can also by the same token interpret within this topic the requirement for some foundational legislation - and that's exactly what the courts have done.
We just need to institute reasonable comprehensive gun control and mitigate the corrosive societal effect of paranoid extremist conservative mental midget gun worship.
Yeah, No we don`t..You just want to force your views on that of a group that does not want them, and has the means of resisting.
The part where any person with a pulse can figure out that completely unregulated gun proliferation is obvious idiocy. This is why we have courts that interpret the constitution and don't try to merely take it literally.
But also, if you do want to get literal, the Founding Fathers made a distinction in what they wrote: "people" and "the people." "The people" was used in context of citizens as a group; not individual people. Understood in this manner, the direct interpretation of the second amendment is that it justified the existence of militias. That's how we came to have the National Guard separate from the other military branches.
But courts have interpreted the second amendment as applying to individual rights as well. And that's all well and good, but they can also by the same token interpret within this topic the requirement for some foundational legislation - and that's exactly what the courts have done.
You're welcome.
And if the courts ruled that slavery is Constitutional, or Rape was legal..Would that make it right?
No, it would not.
How could a right be for a group of individuals and not for individual individuals?
I dont know why you think that courts up hold infringements on civil rights is a good thing?
The part where any person with a pulse can figure out that completely unregulated gun proliferation is obvious idiocy. This is why we have courts that interpret the constitution and don't try to merely take it literally.
But also, if you do want to get literal, the Founding Fathers made a distinction in what they wrote: "people" and "the people." "The people" was used in context of citizens as a group; not individual people. Understood in this manner, the direct interpretation of the second amendment is that it justified the existence of militias. That's how we came to have the National Guard separate from the other military branches.
But courts have interpreted the second amendment as applying to individual rights as well. And that's all well and good, but they can also by the same token interpret within this topic the requirement for some foundational legislation - and that's exactly what the courts have done.
You're welcome.
Since you mentioned the militia, but don't seem to understand their purpose as it pertains to the second amendment, allow Harrier to repost something he wrote in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Read the entire amendment.
" A well regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Now, if you claim that well regulated means gun control, then you have to answer who should be doing the regulating.
If your answer is the federal government, then you have just made the 2nd Amendment meaningless.
Why.
Because the purpose of the militia is to keep a state free, and there is only one entity who can specifically intrude upon the soveriegnty of the several states, and that is the federal government.
The meaning of well regulated is something else then.
What is it?
It is found in the expression of the right.
"A well regulated miltia, necessary for the security of a free state" gives the reason, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" explains how that is to be accomplished
Well regulated means that the militia is adequately provisioned by its members - the people.
Think of it as regulating a room's temperature - a law isn't being passed to maintain 70 degrees, but steps are being taken to keep it that way.
The 2nd Amendment is written so that an adequate militia will be prepared to defend the state against the federal government if neccesary.
Look up your state constitution or codes - chances are that they include language that you are a member of the state militia.
Don't you want your militia to be well regulated?
If so, then don't infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The militia is all able-bodies citizens - and their purpose is to keep the state secure from the federal government,
In California, state codes make a distinction between the national guard and the unorganized militia.
You couldn't be more wrong in ignoring that reality.
We just need to institute reasonable comprehensive gun control and mitigate the corrosive societal effect of paranoid extremist conservative mental midget gun worship.
I believe that you've been asked this question before, but I'll ask it again:
What reasonable restrictions do you propose that a) will reduce violence and b) will not infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens, nor be capable of being twisted in order to do so?
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.
