Lock your doors, stay inside, prepare the mass graves (home, live)

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

I think you might be oversimplifying the issue, buddy.

What's complicated?

[CALGUY]

As I stated in a previous post, I am not on either side of this issue.
I would just like to see it resolved permanently, once and for all.
One item I would like to comment on, I took from post number #31

Therein lies the rub the opponents can't get around. Having gone down the wrong road and arguing that the firearm is the problem, they ignore the fact that it is the human, not the firearm that causes the problem. If they dared to acknowledge that human interaction is required to create the hazard, they find themselves in a position to judge people and that is a fatal flaw in their arguments. What happens is that everyone else then sees their ultimate goal, the control of people, the laws and restrictions on firearms being only the means to an end.

True, the firearm in of itself is not the problem, but does remain the catalyst.
Guns do not kill is not a correct statement.
Guns DO KILL when the trigger is pulled, and if the trigger is not pulled, they don't kill.
Sure, it takes a live being, or some other device to pull that trigger, and that happens to many times in our society, for whatever reason.
So who, or what do we eliminate, the gun that won't kill unless activated by someone, or something, of do we eliminate the right for anyone to possess a gun, or allow gun ownership?
Again,, guns by themselves do not kill anything, it is the mechanism holding the trigger of that gun that allows the gun to kill.
So in fact what we have is a killing machine, that kills, if activated.
So what is the solution?

A gun could sit in a desk drawer for centuries, undisturbed, until someone finally decides to take it out and fire it.
In the desk it is useless.
In the hands of the human holding it, it becomes a lethal weapon.
One way or the other we folks not only have a decision to make, but must live with that decision.
So which will it be.
Remove the guns from society, or allow them.
That is pretty "black and white".
If they are allowed by court decree, laws protecting ownership, and use have to be strict.
Certain segments of society must never have access to them, and how would that be accomplished?
I sure don't have an answer to that one.
Suppose the supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment was to vague in it's directive, and put forth it's own interpretation, and made it the law of the land, stating that the intent of the founding fathers was meant soley for a militia, and not the general public.
At this point, all guns would have to be surrendered, and in it's place tough penalties for being in possession of a gun.
In this case the punishment would have to be the deterrent, so it would have to be extremely tough to the point no one would dare possess one.
So that is the case, in black and white.
It is impossible to please everyone, and on either side of the argument the risk of chaos is inevitable.
What ever the ruling, it would be the law of the land, and would have to be respected as such.
I just wish the court would finally make a permanent ruling on this issue.
Bob.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

It's always been funny to me how the people who most aggressively demand the 2nd Amendment be adhered to are always the ones who skip right over that militia part.

Many gun rights advocates do NOT skip over that part. Why should they? The "well organized militia" is not a limitation on gun ownership, but an ADDITIONAL RIGHT.

The key to understanding the Second Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE. That's the word used in the Amendment. NOT militia, or state, or national guard. The Amendment is talking about the PEOPLE's right.

This is no small thing. The Constitution will sometimes say "citizens," sometimes "persons." Not the same thing. It will sometimes say "people," sometimes "state." Not the same thing. These word choices are not random. They have specific meanings.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE. Why? So that that PEOPLE (not the state) can form well-organized (PRIVATE) militias.

That may cause heart palpitations among some people today, but it's what the Founders had in mind. (Yes, I went to law school -- and passed two bar exams -- long ago.)

[New Horizons]

Militias for what? We have the US armed forces to protect the nation. They train you there.

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE. Why? So that that PEOPLE (not the state) can form well-organized (PRIVATE) militias.

That may cause heart palpitations among some people today, but it's what the Founders had in mind. (Yes, I went to law school -- and passed two bar exams -- long ago.)

[Rkstar71]

Originally Posted by New Horizons

Militias for what? We have the US armed forces to protect the nation. They train you there.

I would hope there would be a militia in case the US gov't decides to act violently against it's own citizens. It has happened in other countries and is happening right now in the middle east. Having a militia to fight back against such tyranny here keeps us from becoming sheep in a slaughter house.

[DontH8Me]

Originally Posted by New Horizons

Militias for what? We have the US armed forces to protect the nation. They train you there.

Was that comment in jest?

[New Horizons]

Originally Posted by Rkstar71

I would hope there would be a militia in case the US gov't decides to act violently against it's own citizens. It has happened in other countries and is happening right now in the middle east. Having a militia to fight back against such tyranny here keeps us from becoming sheep in a slaughter house.

Oh OK I get where your coming from. That's exciting stuff, just like the movies! Can I take part too in this civil war too? I want to reinforce my Grand Marquis with steel panels and cut a hole in the roof where I'd have one of those guns that swivel around in a 360.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

Many gun rights advocates do NOT skip over that part. Why should they? The "well organized militia" is not a limitation on gun ownership, but an ADDITIONAL RIGHT.

The key to understanding the Second Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE. That's the word used in the Amendment. NOT militia, or state, or national guard. The Amendment is talking about the PEOPLE's right.

This is no small thing. The Constitution will sometimes say "citizens," sometimes "persons." Not the same thing. It will sometimes say "people," sometimes "state." Not the same thing. These word choices are not random. They have specific meanings.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE. Why? So that that PEOPLE (not the state) can form well-organized (PRIVATE) militias.

That may cause heart palpitations among some people today, but it's what the Founders had in mind. (Yes, I went to law school -- and passed two bar exams -- long ago.)

In your statement above, how do you know for sure the "people" referred to in the amendment were not the "people" of the militia, but ordinary citizens?
Sounds to me like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe, and that's fine, because the amendment is so vaguely written, it is open to all kinds on interpretation.
I happen to believe it was directed at the people that comprised a militia, and not the general public.

Bob.

[TurcoLoco]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

I'm not a gun nut, and I don't have an NRA membership. I don't see why those on the left care so much about gun rights for those on the right.

I only care about guns getting into the hands of criminals, and into the hands of the mentally unstable. Maybe the laws should focus on that, instead of all these blanket laws that have a huge effect on law abiding citizens.

Could not have said it any better myself!

In time of peace, people seem to find a way to focus on either wrong issues or focus on the right issues from a wrong angle.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

These California nanny laws never have the intended effect that they originally seek out to fulfill. Just ask Oakland California which is #3 in the country for violent crime, yet is in the state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

Oakland's the exception, though.

None of the other 10 largest California cites (pop 400,00 or more) is in the top 25 nationally.