so you want to move to IOWA?????

[zz4guy]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

That must be why Texas has the 20th highest murder rate in the US and Iowa has the 40th highest...

Thats a pretty meaningless comparison. Texas is also probably in the top 5 of states with number of illegal aliens and drug trafficing.

The statistics dont lie. In general states with liberal gun laws see more crime.

[El Rhino]

I live in Polk County and I had a permit to carry a concealed weapon a few years ago. I didn't renew my license because I never felt the need to carry it anywhere and the only places I did feel the need I couldn't legally take it there (places where alcohol is served or anywhere if you've even had a drop of alcohol)


All you had to do to get the license was go take a class on weapons safety for a morning, demonstrate that you're a competent shooter (...and your fearless moderator was the highest shooter in the class) and then fill out a brief form at the Sheriff's office. Not exactly difficult to do or an unreasonable thing for society to ask of people who want to carry around concealed weapons. Also I didn't have a job that would merit carrying around a gun for protection (pizza delivery, bounty hunter, etc), I was just some guy who wanted a permit.

[QuadCityImages]

Different counties do it differently though. The Scott County Sheriff, for example, doesn't generally issue them without some kind of reason. I'd imagine most of the counties in Iowa are pretty easy to get a permit in though.

[RememberMee]

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.

The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 obliged every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to be included in the national militia. It also required these men to provide their own arms and ammunition.

If well regulated militia is no more, it's not quite clear how one can use second part of the second amendment to justify anything. Arms is not the same as guns. Firepower of a private citizen was equal to that of a soldier in regular army 200 years ago. Let's face it, 2-nd amendment is a murky straw, it should be rewritten in no uncertain terms using contemporary language and terms.

Jefferson himself thought that dead people cannot define lives of living, he proposed updating constitution every 15 years. That document is so old, ambiguous, outdated. It's just gigantic feeding trough for lawyer caste. Periodically, judges come to 180 degrees opposite conclusions based on the same document. It's getting ridiculous.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

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.

The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 obliged every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to be included in the national militia. It also required these men to provide their own arms and ammunition.

If well regulated militia is no more, it's not quite clear how one can use second part of the second amendment to justify anything. Arms is not the same as guns. Firepower of a private citizen was equal to that of a soldier in regular army 200 years ago. Let's face it, 2-nd amendment is a murky straw, it should be rewritten in no uncertain terms using contemporary language and terms.

Jefferson himself thought that dead people cannot define lives of living, he proposed updating constitution every 15 years. That document is so old, ambiguous, outdated. It's just gigantic feeding trough for lawyer caste. Periodically, judges come to 180 degrees opposite conclusions based on the same document. It's getting ridiculous.

The 2nd Amendment is not about the militia.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not limited to the militia, in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

Former Attorney General ******** states that "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the of right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/halbrookresp.htm (broken link)

Language and grammar scholars have dissected the 2nd amendment many times, the militia clause has nothing to do with the second clause " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The two parts of the amendment are not dependent on each other.

Here is one view on it: Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444 - broken link)

From that article, a precisely parallel in grammatical structure sentence would be:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

That doesn't mean only the well-schooled would be allowed access to books any more than the 2nd restricts firearm access to the militia.