U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 01-19-2007, 04:02 PM
Location: in my imagination
11,019 posts, read 18,109,464 times
Reputation: 7663


Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to own a firearm. Criminal scum should not. Full stop.

We're all agreed that we want to ensure that honest citizens are able to exercise their Constitutional rights while preventing the abuse of those rights by criminals.

It's been said many times in this forum but it bears repeating. If you don't have a problem with people registering to vote, why have a problem with registering to own a gun? God knows it could be a little harder for illegals to exercise their gun owning "rights".

I refer to what bnepler said;
Originally Posted by bnepler View Post
The real reason for the Fathers of the Constitution" and the 2nd amemdment is a tyranical government. The vote may not really count some day. The gun will. Think it won't, try Venezuela.
if this happened,those that made your vote not count,what do you think they would use a firearms registry for?To make sure you couldn't fight back for you freedom of speech thats what for.

Everyone seems to agree that law abiding citizens should be able to own so what is registration going accomplish,and anybody thats illegal or a criminal won't give a hoot about any laws or registration anyway.

And again,we seen during Katrina given the right circumstances the "law" can and will disarm the populace,a registry would make it even easier to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 01-19-2007, 04:18 PM
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,124,135 times
Reputation: 536
Originally Posted by wildberries61 View Post
winnie, didn't mean to hijack your question just thought since NRA supports the 2nd amendment and I see the anger toward them I could get some answers. So, if people don't mind answering along with winnie's original question.
Actually it is a matter of perception. I dont see the people who dont support the NRA as having "anger" towards them. It is that people, many who also happen to own a gun, dont support a group unconditionally. I own a gun and I dont agree 100% with the NRA and I'm not a member of their group. I just dont believe in them and dont wish to support them, even though I legally own a gun.

My perspective on the amendment is that it doesnt protect an individual right to own a gun. The state can still regulate it. The amendment only bars federal action but not state action. If thee amendment read only "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", then we would have nothing to debate or argue, the fact is it has the dependent clause which matters and is important to the debate.

So, I dont support the NRA, I dont believe the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm, and I legally own a firearm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 05:09 PM
1,393 posts, read 869,846 times
Reputation: 462
Still you and many others still can not explain why you hate NRA it's difintely your right to not like them but, I just have never had anyone explain why. I belong to a Friends of the NRA group and even when asking for donations oh believe me people get angry and when asked why they can't support the non-support. So far know one so far has a reason , just say I "won't donate too a group like that". Like What may I ask?

I believe when writing this they were talking about protecting the land and giving citizens the right to carry in case of invasion on our land and the right to protect. You are less likely to rob or invaded the house with the gun. We should all want this protected and encourage gun education and safety classes. If it's taken away then, they will take away our guns. It's all about control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 05:47 PM
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,124,135 times
Reputation: 536
wildberries, it's an extremist opinion to say hate. I dont support them, I dont believe in them, that does not equate to hate. I just dont believe in their cause unconditionally, that doesnt mean I hate them.

The fact is the dependent clause is there, the amendment as it is written doesnt protect or create an individual's right to own a firearm. It only bars federal action. The state can still act. The amendment protects the states rights to have its citizens be armed if called upon as a citizen soldier as part of a well regulated militia. But it doesnt bar the state from the citizen. Since it doesnt bar the state, is it a right the state has to regulate (10th amendment) or is it a right that the people have (9th & 10th amendment)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 06:01 PM
1,393 posts, read 869,846 times
Reputation: 462
I wasn't meaning you hate I meant that's what people say, I hear more I Hate the NRA then, I hear I dislike. Dislike or Hate still no reason. Not picking on you or asking just you so your not being pointed out. At least you own a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 06:15 PM
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,124,135 times
Reputation: 536
wildberries, because the people who dislike or have no opinion dont care enough to tell you out there. The people who do, do.

The questions was "What exactly is the Second Amendment and what rights does it give its citizens". The amendment doesnt give the citizen the right or protect a right. It only bars federal action against the state. Does the right exist for the people under the 9th or 10th amendment? Debatable. Does the right exist under the 10th amendment for the state to regulate or bar its citizens from having them? Debatable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 06:29 PM
Location: Orange County
354 posts, read 761,894 times
Reputation: 169
At this point, I hardly think the government's many firearm regulations affect any citizen or illegal immigrant's ability to own a gun, if they so choose. You can have as many gun-education courses, background checks, and regulations as you want and it still WON'T limit a person's ability to find a gun off the black market or what have you. And that's absolutely horrible.

I don't think the 2nd amendment was intended to aid such a gun-loving society as ours today and our government failed to prevent this during the industrial revolutions when production and transportation became limitless. Not only do we supply the world's thugs with weapons, but now our own as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 08:54 PM
1,393 posts, read 869,846 times
Reputation: 462
But, should we all lose the right because, criminals will still commit crime weather the we ban guns. It's a little late too take guns away from law-abiding citizens when we are not the problem.
When we were talking about education it was were children are concerned. Criminals have no intentions on learning anything but, their selfish motives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 09:11 PM
919 posts, read 1,668,006 times
Reputation: 478
I believe that when the 2nd amendment was wrote the goverment trusted the people to own and possess guns. that trust should not have changed. criminals dont deserve that. under no circumstances does the goverment have the right to disarm the whole populace, period. the states have a right to not allow felons to have guns, get them, that is what i demand of my goverment. or ill vote in those that will, just leave me and law abiding folks alone. no more no less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-19-2007, 10:41 PM
1,125 posts, read 3,185,488 times
Reputation: 433
Let us ponder this subject a moment. If the Second Amendment is not an individual right, then neither are the other ten. The portion of the Second Amendment referring to a well regulated militia was a statement of fact. All males were considered members of the militia at that time, and it was necessary for those men to have arms; however, as can be seen in the wording of the Second Amendment, there is no clause limiting the right to bare arms to only members of the militia. The wording of the amendment is much akin to saying, a well educated electorate being necessary for good of the nation, the right to education will not be infringed. Would anyone interpret this to mean that only voting members of society have the right to an education? I think not. Oh, and no, there was no National Guard. The National Guard did not come into existence until the early 20th Century.

I have also seen an argument that puts forth the theory individual states can prevent citizens from bearing arms, in that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from infringing on this right. If this is true, then individual states are allowed to overrule the law of the land, which they may not. If such were the case, then states could abolish every right. I acknowledge that state and local laws do infringe on the right of citizens to bare arms; however, it is my opinion such laws are without constitutional justification.

The right to bare arms does not extend to juveniles, so statements that the Second Amendment allows children to possess arms are silly at best. Until such time as they reach the age of majority, children fall under the authority of their parents, who may restrict certain behaviors they deem not in the best interest of their charges. This is not meant to imply children are only entitled to the rights given them by their parents. There is no question parents are required to provide the basic necessities of life, and a firearm is certainly not a basic necessity.

The Bill of Rights is not a grantor of rights nor are the rights contained therein the only rights we posses. The Bill of Rights is simply a codified expression of rights which the framers of the Constitution strongly believed were most important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top