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.
I think crista has her heart in the right place. some take a hard stance because of the hard stance anti-gunners have taken in the past. Its hard to find middle ground. Im sure others have had infulence for her to have learned to use the term "duty" but in away I see her point. Just wont use that term instead of "right" myself.
Thanks for the link, but the 2nd Amendment is a pretty short read. All you need is right there in that one sentence.
This I gotta hear. Which case, specifically, can you cite where the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to bear arms as a duty?
state of kansas vs janes blacksley 1905
is where the debate started b4 this everyone accepted that "people"meant the induvidual,now some want to argue the "people"meant the states right. some idots took the writings of the 1905 hearing and turned the debate into states vs peoples rights and this has lead to where we are today.this is because we have hard wired into the constitution that we must have militas,many dont like it but it is there ,thus we have a duty to bear arms.
. Its hard to find middle ground. Just wont use that term instead ofIm sure others "right" myself.
This is one of the problems with the so called "middle ground". The RIGHT to owning and possesing arms was an explicit right, understood by the founders of this nation, long before the Constitution was written. Their view was that every able bodied male has a DUTY to own, supply, and have skill in the use of the hottest assault weapon of the day. There are many laws on the books, pre-Constitution that required the ownership and use of a firearm, fines were levied for those who did not, and rifles were provided for those who could not for themselves.
Over time, due to the fact that this country experienced prosparity, and relative internal peace, the average person did not see a direct personal need for a firearm, and the previous stance of government (the people) was that we can "give up a little" on our position on firearms to accomodate those that are against firearms. This is a compromise on the right and duty of firearm ownership. Then with more prosparity, and more people putting their personal safety, as well as the safety of the Republic, on the shoulders of others (read as shirking their responsibilty) they further saw no "need" for firearms for themselves. They further as for more compromises on the right and duty of gun ownership. Each time we "find the middle road", we are just giving up more of the right. It is quite simple. To compromise on Rights, it to give up Rights, no other way to look at it.
So you say that "all I want it for you to register" my firearms, Why? It does nothing to prevent crime, it does nothing to help in the investigation of crimes, it does nothing to keep people safer in any way, shape or form. If I choose not to register them, what it the penalty? You take them away from me, you fine me ? That is a compromise and a reduction in my right. There is only one reason for registration of firearms (or any RIGHT) and that is so the Central government will know who has them, and will treat them differently, and eventually come and get them (it has happened everywhere it has been tried).
The reality is that the ONLY TRUE PURPOSE of the Second Amendment, as it was written, and as it stands today, is for the "People" to have the means to protect themselves from an over reaching, tyranical domestic government. The other reasons for attibuted to the Amendment are secondary biproducts. So you must ask yourself, if you for registration, what will keep you from becoming for confiscation? What would you do if, after you get your registration, a later administration says they will confiscate? The BIGGEST and most direct threat to your rights, and mine, is the Governement that we have established. History, and current events, prove that the biggest cause of "loss of human rights", and loss of human life (due to violence) is at the hands of the government in control at the time. "It can't happen here" you say? It has many times! It has been thrarted from time to time by citizens with guns, but often the People "choose the middle road" and allow it to happen.
So Sport, I must ask the question...What are you going to do? If you want to rid this country of guns, you have over 80 million gun owners, with over 250 million guns. There are at least 1% of the gun owners that "think" that owning the guns is their right, and are willing to fight for that right, that gives us....800,000 gun owners that are willing to fight to keep you from getting our guns. Let's assume that you send thugs to come and take our guns and they kill us, do you think that we won't reciprocate? Don't bet on it, so let us assume that we acheive a 1 to 1 ratio on "killing" thing, that is a minimum of 1.6 million dead, for your gun confiscation, worth it?
Look at what is going on in Iraq. The public considers that to be a blood bath, and there are FAR less than 800,000, rightous, well armed, well trained gun owners willing to die for their beliefs. I shutter to think of what would actually happen in this country if this is attempted here. The Founders KNEW what would happen, thus the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They also knew that government needed to have a leash. They gave us a leash, they gave us a stick, then they, as a last resort, gave us a gun to put it down when it gets too rabid.
Second Amendment for hunting and sport???.. Never crossed their minds, nor does it cross mine.
Second Amendment for stopping burgulars??? A nice biproduct, but not the reason.
Second Amendment....To keep the government in its proper place...under the control of the people. This has been said many times, by the Founders, by Historians, by the victims of governments throughout history, by over 800,000 pissed off, well armed, well trained Americans.
funfaler, I hope as you stay around you learn to paste alittle clearer. I stated that I use the term right to bear, not duty. thats the way the 2nd was wrote. the rest I agree with what you state.
Personally, I think gun laws need to be local and not national.
Depending on where you live, your neighbor's "right" to have a gun could severly impinge on your "right" to live. Some areas need to have stringent licensing and testing requirements. Other areas, eh, who cares?
In large cities, where the only thing that separates you from your neighbors, is 4" of drywall and some insulation (maybe), and there is NO direction you can shoot in without the risk of hitting someone else (through a wall, ceiling or floor) -- I think guns should not be passed out like candy. Gun advocates sometimes disagree with me, but not very often. In big cities like Tokyo and New York City, guns are far more hazardous than in places like Cornfield, Nebraska.
part of the problem is there are way to many state restrictions, very confusing. responsibility is diff than right to own. who target shoots in an apartment? and I expect the same responsibility from the guy shooting very long ranges in KS.
Over time, due to the fact that this country experienced prosparity, and relative internal peace, the average person did not see a direct personal need for a firearm, and the previous stance of government (the people) was that we can "give up a little" on our position on firearms to accomodate those that are against firearms. This is a compromise on the right and duty of firearm ownership.
>Actually it had to do with a paranoia about immigrants similar to that in our own day. The first state gun control law, New York's 1911 Sullivan Act, was the result of nativist panic about Southern and Eastern European immigrants and their supposed attraction to political radicalism.
The reality is that the ONLY TRUE PURPOSE of the Second Amendment, as it was written, and as it stands today, is for the "People" to have the means to protect themselves from an over reaching, tyranical domestic government.
>The population of Belfast is as heavily armed as many places in the US, yet the IRA never managed to get control. Saddam Hussein allowed Iraqis to own guns,and they didn't overthrow his regime.
So Sport, I must ask the question...What are you going to do? If you want to rid this country of guns, you have over 80 million gun owners, with over 250 million guns.
>Which is why strict restriction of guns nationwide in the US would never work. It really should be up to the states to decide.
Second Amendment for hunting and sport???.. Never crossed their minds, nor does it cross mine.
>Actually, it did cross their minds. Hunting was considered a royal prerogative. To the founders, the common man being able to own a gun in order to hunt was crucial to reverse the abuses of monarchical power. Not to mention that in colonial America, hunting was the major means of obtaining food for a large part of the population. It was not their major consideration, but they did think of it. It was practical and also had important symbolic value as a repudiation of kings and aristocracy.
Second Amendment....To keep the government in its proper place...under the control of the people. This has been said many times, by the Founders, by Historians, by the victims of governments throughout history, by over 800,000 pissed off, well armed, well trained Americans.
While the number of weapons in the US makes gun control impossible, I don't think widespread gun ownership makes much difference when confronted by an invading power with high technology. If every Pole had been armed in 1939, Poland would not have been able to fight off the Wehrmacht and still would have suffered under Nazi rule.
I've never known anyone to target shoot in an apartment -- but people have been killed and wounded by bullets that have gone through walls. Not that long ago, the police were shooting at someone and one of their bullets went through a wall and hit a woman sitting at her desk in an office nearby.
so that was a trained police officer, unable to shoot straight. also the dept should use the appropriate type bullet for that type of work. that has nothing to do with an armed populace or why the state should restrict me teach the cop tp shoot better. 40 bullets shot, nobody killed.
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.
