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.
Laugh all you want, that's all the statist gun grabbers have now. You're in the minority and the courts are finally hammering down on gun control. Next gun case I suspect: the right to bear arms outside one's home. In a couple years or less you can kiss the anti-carry laws of MA, NY, NJ, RI, MD, IL and CA good bye for good.
But then again, none of you have justified the need for owning. Saying for protection is total bull****.
Protection in the minute chance you'll be a victim, please. You'll be a victim as often as you'll win the lottery.
Should all freedoms be justified based on life or death needs?
Can you demonstrate that legal gun owners are the root cause of violent crimes in America?
If you can then you will be the first ever.
To say that banning ownership of guns is legitimate to make a safer society then you must include items such as private ownerships of cars.
Far more people die in car accidents than from private law abiding gun owners.
Laugh all you want, that's all the statist gun grabbers have now. You're in the minority and the courts are finally hammering down on gun control. Next gun case I suspect: the right to bear arms outside one's home. In a couple years or less you can kiss the anti-carry laws of MA, NY, NJ, RI, MD, IL and CA good bye for good.
"FOR A WELL ARMED MILITIA..." that's the premise of the right. States were given the right to form militias, as they had done since the days of Winthrop. Militias by definition are a set of militarized citizens, except today we have a professional army. Militia's aren't needed, therefore the right is archaric.
You need to go re-read it, and re-take (or take) a junior high English class to understand basic sentence structure. There are two completely independent clauses in the 2nd amendment. Do you think "the people" means something different in the second amendment than it does in any of the others?
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. is that statement REALLY so difficult for you to grasp?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
FOR A WELL ARMED MILITIA...that's the point of the right, not so you and I can have a weapon for the sake of it.
And please explain, why you need or want to own a gun....protection? protection from what?
Once again you completely miss the point. The militia is NOT the point of the 2nd amendment.
How many hundreds of thousands of times a year do handguns need to be used by people (outside of Chicago) to defend themselves for you to get the picture? How many genocides around the world that start with banning civilian ownership of firearms?
Of course you're from MA and probably voted for Kennedy and/or Kerry so your views are hardly a surprise.
Well counter argument was that the constitution also says that States can write thier own laws, so shouldn't Illinois then be able to write laws regarding firearms.
There is a provision in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause:
SUPREMACY CLAUSE
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993)."
Should all freedoms be justified based on life or death needs?
Can you demonstrate that legal gun owners are the root cause of violent crimes in America?
If you can then you will be the first ever.
To say that banning ownership of guns is legitimate to make a safer society then you must include items such as private ownerships of cars.
Far more people die in car accidents than from private law abiding gun owners.
You people keep using these words, "legal, law abiding" When in fact the Const, makes no distinction.
Besides isn't car ownership a priviledge, not a right....?
But I live in suburban Massachusetts, there hasn't been a crime in my town in about 10 years, and then I think some teens stole the town offices sign.
But then again, none of you have justified the need for owning. Saying for protection is total bull****.
Protection in the minute chance you'll be a victim, please. You'll be a victim as often as you'll win the lottery.
If you feel the need to own a gun for "protection" then you have some serious insecurity issues to work through. I recommend seeing a therapist.
My grandfather went his whole life without experiencing a crime until when he was in his 80's, with me (only 3 years old), having just gotten into the car at a parking lot, he was approached by a thug criminal. Him pulling out his 1911, which scared that thug off pretty quick, probably saved our lives...
Crime happens, even in New England. It's your decision to carry a gun for self-defense or not. No one is forcing you. But you have no right to tell others not to exercise the basic right of self-preservation.
You need to go re-read it, and re-take (or take) a junior high English class to understand basic sentence structure. There are two completely independent clauses in the 2nd amendment. Do you think "the people" means something different in the second amendment than it does in any of the others?
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. is that statement REALLY so difficult for you to grasp?
Once again you completely miss the point. The militia is NOT the point of the 2nd amendment.
How many hundreds of thousands of times a year do handguns need to be used by people (outside of Chicago) to defend themselves for you to get the picture? How many genocides around the world that start with banning civilian ownership of firearms?
Of course you're from MA and probably voted for Kennedy and/or Kerry so your views are hardly a surprise.
Just another anti-gun progressive pissed off about Scott Brown kicking the Kennedy liberals to the curb.
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.
Supremacy Clause
