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.
Generally speaking, crime has a lot to do with wealth and education. It is interesting to note that one of the two strictest states in terms of arms registration, Illinois, is by far not the most criminal one, it ranks somewhere in the upper third, and would probably rank even better if it weren't for Chicago. And Wisconsin, the other strict state, is doing even a lot better than Illinois, it is at the same safety level as Vermont, which gun enthusiasts say is so safe because of its arms. Vermont has few social problems, thus little crime. It would have just as little crime or even less, if it had Illinois' laws.
I wouldn't want to be a shop owner in a place where every customer coming in the door is likely to carry a gun.
It would make more sense to bring about a decent living standard for everybody, fight drug abuse, invest in education, etc.
Criminal energy won't go away because of armed citizens, it will only be directed against new objects, usually the weakest members of society. It's like with rapists - castrating them won't turn them into better people, they will continue to be violent in a different way.
Saying that there are restrictions on types of weapons one can carry does not equate to saying that they can ban all forms of carry. Of course, states have always had that right, providing there was no prohibition in their own constitutions, as the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to limit only the federal government, as was the rest of the Bill of Rights.
This doctrine of "incorporation" via the 14th Amendment, however, could (I'm not saying it will, because I don't know how the USSC will rule) change this and guarantee an individual right to carry. It could also leave us at the status quo.
The Constitution overrides state control. And by allowing states to set carry limits, the Court is acknowledging that the right to carry is not a part of the 2nd Amendment.
The Constitution overrides state control. And by allowing states to set carry limits, the Court is acknowledging that the right to carry is not a part of the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, it does now, but it wasn't always so. When first drafted, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) only applied to the federal government. The Constitution is a framework for the federal government. Each state, being sovereign, has its own constitution.
Yes, it does now, but it wasn't always so. When first drafted, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) only applied to the federal government. The Constitution is a framework for the federal government. Each state, being sovereign, has its own constitution.
I wouldn't want to be a shop owner in a place where every customer coming in the door is likely to carry a gun.
Regardless of any changes to the law, I doubt seriously that 100% of the population would elect to carry a firearm so, your statement about 100% of the customers ("every customer) coming in the door carrying is highly unlikely.
That said, in Arizona where I primarily reside, it is COMMON for shop keepers to allow customers to enter their store carrying a firearm. More than likely the customers carrying a firearm will carry it concealed so the shop keeper is unlikely to know who is, and who is not, carrying anyway.
The Founders wanted citizens armed to keep a strong check on an illicit government attempting to take away their liberty and property.
I'm not so sure about that. Where did you read it? In fact, the constitution authorizes the government to suppress insurrections. Article 1/Section 8:
Quote:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
"Militia" is not to be confused with a random group of armed citizens either. The constitution asks for a regulated militia, explained in the clause that follows:
Quote:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
The second amendment also refers to a regulated militia as being necessary for defense:
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is the second last piece that is often debated and is debatable, the rest is pretty straightforward.
Yes, it does now, but it wasn't always so. When first drafted, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) only applied to the federal government. The Constitution is a framework for the federal government. Each state, being sovereign, has its own constitution.
[/quote]
Ahem. One more time: The US constitution is supreme, and all states must respect that. They CANNOT override the US constitution.
I'm not so sure about that. Where did you read it? In fact, the constitution authorizes the government to suppress insurrections. Article 1/Section 8:
"Militia" is not to be confused with a random group of armed citizens either. The constitution asks for a regulated militia, explained in the clause that follows:
The second amendment also refers to a regulated militia as being necessary for defense:
It is the second last piece that is often debated and is debatable, the rest is pretty straightforward.
Gentleman, I am an attorney. One thing you have to understand is that the Constitution was vague because the founders wanted it to be everchanging with the times. The Supreme Court interprets this document and the justice department enforces the laws based on how the Supreme Court views it. As for the 2nd Amendment the Supreme Court recently used this to overturn a ban on guns in Washington, DC. So, the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted to apply to people, as well as Militias. Now having guns in your homes for protection is one thing and a group of armed citizens roaming the streets is another. Do not mix that up.
So, the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted to apply to people, as well as Militias. Now having guns in your homes for protection is one thing and a group of armed citizens roaming the streets is another. Do not mix that up.
I guess attorney speak for "debatable" is "interpretation" of a statement and in this case, the second amendment. As you say, the judges interpret it as they see fit.
Now, your point about militia is requiring a bit of interpretation that I would rather not. Would you explain/elaborate on what you just said?
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.
