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.
The founding fathers never envisioned standing armies having nuclear weapons, planes, chemical weapons, missiles, tanks, automatic weapons,biological weapons, chemical weapons, a huge government with the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, welfare, social security,mass media, the internet, the list goes on and on and on and on. I'm not sure that our soldiers would be too enthused about going into battle with flintlock muskets.
What else are you looking to ban since it didn't exist back then and you've used your crystal ball to divine what the founding fathers wanted?
Then tell me just what the hell military arms are good for in civilian life? They were never intended to included in the 2A BASED ON THE WEAPONS OF THE TIME.
If you knew your history you would know weapons that fired hundred of rounds per minute would ever be considered as "hunting" rifles now or then.
You , like so many other gun nuts, babble on about what the 2A says but tell me where machine guns are covered in the 2A.
So are you saying that civilians should only be allowed to own muskets and flintlock pistols, since those were the small arms of the day the amendment was written?
Then tell me just what the hell military arms are good for in civilian life? They were never intended to included in the 2A BASED ON THE WEAPONS OF THE TIME.
If you knew your history you would know weapons that fired hundred of rounds per minute would ever be considered as "hunting" rifles now or then.
You , like so many other gun nuts, babble on about what the 2A says but tell me where machine guns are covered in the 2A.
if you knew your history, you would know that that arms that the people owned at the time were the SAME THING the military used. even the founding father recognized this, thus the reason the second amendment was written the way it was. it doesnt limit the people in the types of weapons they are allowed to own. and while i agree there is no real civilian use for a browning .50 caliber machine gun, i also have no problem with the average law abiding citizen owning one if they have the money to buy one and can get an FFL.
The right wing in America is responsible for all of the hate and discontent we now suffer from. What happened to these once sane people??
"The American Right is fond of putting itself inside the minds of America’s Founders and intuiting what was their “original intent” in writing the U.S. Constitution and its early additions, like the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms.” But, surely, James Madison and the others weren’t envisioning people with modern weapons mowing down children in a movie theater or a shopping mall or now.......a.kindergarten.
Then tell me just what the hell military arms are good for in civilian life? They were never intended to included in the 2A BASED ON THE WEAPONS OF THE TIME.
If you knew your history you would know weapons that fired hundred of rounds per minute would ever be considered as "hunting" rifles now or then.
You , like so many other gun nuts, babble on about what the 2A says but tell me where machine guns are covered in the 2A.
Once again, for the hundredth plus time, "machine guns" are illegal for civilian use, and have been since 1986.
As for the idiotic contention that the 2nd Amendment never intended to include military weapons, I've got news for you grandpa, that is precisely what the 2nd Amendment intended ... "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". This right to bear arms is intended to ensure that the people would always maintain the right to possess the tools for defense against any threat to their security ... and I think it safe to assume that the founding fathers would not take such a maniacal position as to limit that right to arms that would be inferior to those who might be imposing such a threat. Do you think the founding fathers would want the enemy of the people better armed?
And finally ... the "machine gun" is covered under the all inclusive term "arms" .. which meant the weapons commonly used for military defense purposes ... i.e. "militia". Certainly, had the founders envisioned modern weaponry as it exists today, they would want the people to be at least as modernly equipped as their enemy might be .... that sentiment is clearly covered in that little part that says "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ....." In the language of the day .. "well regulated" meant to be well equipped and trained.
Why is it so difficult for you left wing loony tunes to grasp rudimentary logic, common sense, and basic English?
Our founders were interested in protecting pioneers on the frontier against Indian massacres that happened quite often. They allowed citizens to own the most advanced weaponry at the time. The right of self-defense fundamental.
nice try grandpa, but you and your liberal antigun buddies continue to fail basic comprehension. you also tend to stop at well regulated militia, and ignore "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". and scotus has ruled that not only does the second amendment apply to the state and local governments as well as the federal, but they hav also ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective one.
"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." - Justice Robert Jackson
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,730,207 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Well, the SCOTUS has ruled that you do not need to be part of law enforcement or the military, aka the "militia", to keep and bear firearms. Basically, you're making the argument that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the only guns civilians should have access to are muskets and flintlock pistols, yes?
Can't wait for these threads to die. I give it a week, well 4 more days and we'll probably see a lot of threads about December 21
yes they will always die out!!! until some freaking gun nut goes on another rampage..and then like the phoenix they will rise out of the ashes..
The framers of the Constitution wanted a country with a standing population of civilians who had their own arms and knew how to use them in the event of conflict with foreign nations - I don't refute that. I think that's a valid conclusion, so I agree with the gun rights crowd there.
Where I disagree is the idea that the people who authored the constitution and who formed the basis of American law would have wanted to neutralize the government's ability to deal with people who posed a threat to civility, law, peace, and tranquility. That is simply absurd to assume that the government has to just accept people with firearms as a necessary evil, because it's contrary to the one of the central motives for having the Constitutional Convention in the first place. They had moved beyond the Revolution; they wanted a stable country with a strong centralized government that could unify states and enable them to prosper. Beyond that, let's remember something: what makes the American Revolution so extraordinary is that it was a revolution of and by intellectuals. To suggest that they would adopt an extreme position on firearms ownership so as to endanger civility and public safety is contrary to everything we know about the people who contributed to the philosophical framework of the Constitution and basic American legal principles.
The Constitution prohibits (in theory) the federal government from disarming a state so that they cannot be autonomous - that was one of the central aims of the Amendment. However, that being said, that particular rationale is in question given the outcome of the Civil War, effectively providing a de facto nullification of a state's right to secede from and operate freely of the Union. Whatever the case, though, there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the government from forcing gun owners to have licenses; to carry liability insurance; to tax gun ownership; to impose fees; to monitor firearms production, distribution, and ownership; and to confiscate guns from those who do not comply with the laws. Granted, all of these stipulations would, in all probability, be highly unpopular and would thus likely never come to pass, but supposing the people were sufficiently disgusted with our gun culture, there's nothing unconstitutional about any such proposals at all.
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.
