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.
What, you didn't see a part about local limtations in the 2nd amendment, but you somehow *did* see something in the constitution about M16's and AK47's not being appropriate for the general public to own? Which way do you want it here, because you seem to be picking battles.
The fact is there are rules, caveats, and limitations to the 2nd amendment, and only the dimmest people in here won't be able to admit that. Part of the problem is that this country is so large and diverse that simple blanket laws regarding firearms at the federal level don't cut it. What passes for acceptable in rural Wyoming may not be acceptable for a place like New York City. (Yes, I believe it *is* appropriate to limit people's firearm rights in places like NYC. It's a matter of public safety in densely urbanized areas such as that.)
And this was the false logic that the anti's tried to apply to every state that passed shall issue laws. "It won't work here"... "There will be blood in the streets"... "People will shoot each other over traffic disputes". Guess what, in no city big or small did any of these things occur. I have worked in NYC for over 30 years. I can tell you I feel it would be a safer place if the law abiding were armed. The criminals already are. That's the whole point.
To all those opposed to guns, and all for abolishing our 2nd amendment rights, I have a few questions:
- Do you honestly think it's a good idea for citizens not to be allowed the right to bear arms?
- Do you think that criminals who have no regard for the law to begin with are going to follow any gun restriction law?
- Don't you think that once criminals are the only people with guns that the rest of society aren't sitting ducks for home invasion, robbery and a number of other crimes by gunpoint, because the criminal will know you have absolutely no way to defend yourself?
- Do you honestly think that if guns had been outlawed that incidents like Columbine would have never happened, that they wouldn't have gone to a black market arms dealer to carry out their horrifying act?
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but I think extreme gun control policies would do much more harm than good. I personally think one should have the right to bear arms for protection of one's self and one's family. Your thoughts?
Your post presumes there are people who want to ban all guns. I dont think anyone feels that way, at least not on C-D.
Do these quotes sound like men who wanted to give more power to the government or to the people?:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers,334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment If you need more, just Google it. It's rediculous to think the 2nd Amendment does anything other than confirm The People's right to keep and bear arms.
Do these quotes sound like men who wanted to give more power to the government or to the people?:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers,334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment If you need more, just Google it. It's rediculous to think the 2nd Amendment does anything other than confirm The People's right to keep and bear arms.
Careful JeepJeep! Some effete snob will label you a drama king and start making silly allusions to the 'wild west'. Since 1934 there have been so many 'gun control' laws passed that giving a hard number on them is quite impossible. None of these laws and restrictions has done a thing to prevent criminal misuse of firearms nor have we become safer as a nation because of them. What they have acomplished is to turn otherwise honest folks into criminals, by criminalizing self defense. The anti firearms people just love to throw out skewed statistics and rabid , melodramatic rhetoric about 'blood in the streets', 'shootouts at the local market over parking spaces', 'we don't live in the Wild West' anymore', 'we have police to protect us' on and on it goes. OK, so places like CA, NY, HI, MA Dc ets etc, have put massive restrictions on the second amendement with the premise of 'stopping gun violence'. Hmm, how'd that work out for them again? Tell me what the AWB did to stop violent crime. Yep , all those gangbangers rushed right down to the local PD to turn in their Uzi's, Macs, illegally modified Tech 9's, AK's and M-16's. The only weapons this 'got off the street' were legally purchased and owned semi auto service style weapons used for legal pursuits. Yet , the folly of such restrictions escapes the backers of it completely. Lol, now there is talk of releasing a horde of incarcerated criminals in the great state OF CA because they can't afford to keep them locked up and self defense is a crime there. LMAO, how they going to afford to lock up those who arm themselves against the goblins that are gong to be poured out onto them? Shere madness.
Careful JeepJeep! Some effete snob will label you a drama king and start making silly allusions to the 'wild west'. Since 1934 there have been so many 'gun control' laws passed that giving a hard number on them is quite impossible. None of these laws and restrictions has done a thing to prevent criminal misuse of firearms nor have we become safer as a nation because of them. What they have acomplished is to turn otherwise honest folks into criminals, by criminalizing self defense. The anti firearms people just love to throw out skewed statistics and rabid , melodramatic rhetoric about 'blood in the streets', 'shootouts at the local market over parking spaces', 'we don't live in the Wild West' anymore', 'we have police to protect us' on and on it goes. OK, so places like CA, NY, HI, MA Dc ets etc, have put massive restrictions on the second amendement with the premise of 'stopping gun violence'. Hmm, how'd that work out for them again? Tell me what the AWB did to stop violent crime. Yep , all those gangbangers rushed right down to the local PD to turn in their Uzi's, Macs, illegally modified Tech 9's, AK's and M-16's. The only weapons this 'got off the street' were legally purchased and owned semi auto service style weapons used for legal pursuits. Yet , the folly of such restrictions escapes the backers of it completely. Lol, now there is talk of releasing a horde of incarcerated criminals in the great state OF CA because they can't afford to keep them locked up and self defense is a crime there. LMAO, how they going to afford to lock up those who arm themselves against the goblins that are gong to be poured out onto them? Shere madness.
Maybe I was being unnessarily quip in my reply, but you sir are a drama king, and anyone reading posts such as above knows it in short order. Real gangbangers won't often be caught with those sorts of exotic automatic weapons. They usually carry 9mm handguns or whatever they can burg from someone's home or buy black market off the street...usually cheap saturday night special "junk guns"
I'm by no means anti-gun, but middle of the roaders like myself have no difficulty seeing why you gun zealots get laughed at. Your rhetoric that everyone should be able to walk around armed to the teeth and able to outgun the police or other LE, regardless of what part of the country they're in is plain dangerous and irresponsible, but believe whatever you want.
Even though I think of myself as a liberal, when it comes to crime I'm a hardliner. A series of home invasions in my apartment complex (including my place getting robbed when I was at work) has led me to consider getting a firearm. I don't think I need a semiautomatic weapon though and I certainly don't want a felon or a mentally ill person getting a gun (but the felon could get it off the street anyway).
But here's what I don't know. Where do you keep the thing so you can use it against someone who breaks in to your place? Right now I'm sitting on my living room sofa and when I was robbed the guy came in through the bedroom patio. What, do you have to have a gun in every room? I don't want that. I don't even want ONE but I'm starting to thing it's a good idea.
Even though I think of myself as a liberal, when it comes to crime I'm a hardliner. A series of home invasions in my apartment complex (including my place getting robbed when I was at work) has led me to consider getting a firearm. I don't think I need a semiautomatic weapon though and I certainly don't want a felon or a mentally ill person getting a gun (but the felon could get it off the street anyway).
But here's what I don't know. Where do you keep the thing so you can use it against someone who breaks in to your place? Right now I'm sitting on my living room sofa and when I was robbed the guy came in through the bedroom patio. What, do you have to have a gun in every room? I don't want that. I don't even want ONE but I'm starting to thing it's a good idea.
Well, the nice thing about handguns is that they're portable so they can follow you through the house if need be. I keep my home protection pistol "centrally" located (mid-way between front and back entrance) when I'm home, locked in a safe when I'm not and on the bedside stand at night.
Maybe I was being unnessarily quip in my reply, but you sir are a drama king, and anyone reading posts such as above knows it in short order. Real gangbangers won't often be caught with those sorts of exotic automatic weapons. They usually carry 9mm handguns or whatever they can burg from someone's home or buy black market off the street...usually cheap saturday night special "junk guns"
I'm by no means anti-gun, but middle of the roaders like myself have no difficulty seeing why you gun zealots get laughed at. Your rhetoric that everyone should be able to walk around armed to the teeth and able to outgun the police or other LE, regardless of what part of the country they're in is plain dangerous and irresponsible, but believe whatever you want.
...and I'm done.
Oh please! Nowhere have I said that average citizens should be outgunning the police or military. Street gangs , however are a different matter. Despite what you claim, the more ruthless and lucrative gangs can and do get hold of some pretty impressive hardware. You think I am a zealot? Wow. I did draw a line between semi auto service style weapons and military hardware, and I own a couple of the former types, which I use for various types of competition. Your rhetoric that this is 'zealotry" and an attempt to outgun the cops and run around armed to the teeth is the drama attempt. Your position is hardly 'middle of the road' as you cannot seem to differentiate between lawful enthusiasts of the shooting sports and rabid end of the world types. I do believe that folks have the right to defend themselves and that most 'gun control' laws effect only the law abiding. But nowhere can the inference be drawn that I am advocating walking around looking like something out of the Matrix.
I feel compelled to pose a question to the anti firearms rights folks here. The argument against the individual right to arms always seems to revolve around an interpretation of the second amendment as a COLLECTIVE right. So, why the does it refer to the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms? Why, again, would anyone see the second amendment as the ONLY right that does not apply to the individual? That is a ludicrous position. It's pretty simple really, the Bill of Rights lists the rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens. Now, if I were to offer up a theory that the first amendment refers to a collective right of the states to regulate speech, the howling from the same people who wish to interpret the second amendment thus would blow our eardrums. The Bill of rights addresses INDIVIDUAL rights. All of the amendments address individual rights. Yes , even the second amendment. To argue otherwise makes no sense at all, other than some folks just don't like the fact that citizens are entitled to the right to bear arms so they try and separate that right from the rest utilizing some type of twisted logic that makes sense only to them
I do not see it as not applying to individuals, I think it does apply to individuals, but in a different way then it is interpreted to be. Essentially the main point of the bill of rights was to limit the power of the federal government and that is what the second amendment does or rather did until Heller.
Prior to Heller, imho the point behind the Second Amendment was to say that the federal government cannot tell people what guns they can and cannot have against the wishes of the state in which they reside. So for example, if Georgia passed a law saying people in Georgia have the right to purchase and use firearms X, Y, and Z. the federal government could not, in theory, go and prohibit the people of Georgia from buying firearm Z because that would violate the rights of those individuals under the 2nd Amendment.
Post Heller, the supreme court changed that to essentially say that while there are some firearms even states can't ban. There are other firearms (and persons that will not be allowed to have firearms) that the federal government is allowed to ban or restrict regardless of what the wishes of the people in a given state are.
That expansion of federal power against all the established precedent from Cruishank back is what I do not like about Heller. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti gun as I said I do not have any problems with gun ownership or whatever.
A central difference between pre and post heller is that Pre-Heller, in theory, if you owned a gun that was banned federally, but protected by your state laws all you had to do was say the second amendment protects my right to have this weapon as it is a lawful weapon in my state and the federal government has no right to infringe upon my right to bear it.
Now you have to prove that that weapon is a "class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self defense." If you cannot do that then the federal government or states or the federal government against the wishes of states can restrict firearms because according to Heller "The second Amendment is not unlimited" and "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
As to speech that is specifically protected under the 14th amendment, because there is no qualifier on the first amendment. If the first Amendment said "People have freedom of religion on their own property" then I think states would certainly have the right to be more restrictive of religion in public, but it doesn't while the second amendment does have the qualifier "in order to form a well regulated militia." Additionally prior to the 14th amendment states could ban whatever speech they wanted.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-06-2009 at 12:49 PM..
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.
Since 1934 there have been so many 'gun control' laws passed that giving a hard number on them is quite impossible. None of these laws and restrictions has done a thing to prevent criminal misuse of firearms nor have we become safer as a nation because of them. What they have acomplished is to turn otherwise honest folks into criminals, by criminalizing self defense. The anti firearms people just love to throw out skewed statistics and rabid , melodramatic rhetoric about 'blood in the streets', 'shootouts at the local market over parking spaces', 'we don't live in the Wild West' anymore', 'we have police to protect us' on and on it goes. OK, so places like CA, NY, HI, MA Dc ets etc, have put massive restrictions on the second amendement with the premise of 'stopping gun violence'. Hmm, how'd that work out for them again? Tell me what the AWB did to stop violent crime. Yep , all those gangbangers rushed right down to the local PD to turn in their Uzi's, Macs, illegally modified Tech 9's, AK's and M-16's. The only weapons this 'got off the street' were legally purchased and owned semi auto service style weapons used for legal pursuits. Yet , the folly of such restrictions escapes the backers of it completely. Lol, now there is talk of releasing a horde of incarcerated criminals in the great state OF CA because they can't afford to keep them locked up and self defense is a crime there. LMAO, how they going to afford to lock up those who arm themselves against the goblins that are gong to be poured out onto them? Shere madness.
