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.
And unlike every other right protected by the constitution, this one has a contingency: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Once a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary, it becomes moot, unlike inalienable rights that have no contingency.
That just states a reason for it, not a prerequisite.
And a militia is never unnecessary. They were called up during WWII in both Oregon and Maryland.
Yes, because at that point of time, they relied on individuals having guns so they could call them into action to stop an insurrection or an outside threat. The government doesn't do that anymore, so the 2nd amendment seems irrelevant to me.
The 2nd amendment wasn't written because everyone had an inalienable right to own a gun. It was a means to an end.
What about riots? Would you really trust local law enforcement to protect you in a situation like the LA riots? You really think private ownership of firearms is no longer necessary?
I bolded the important part for you. The government cannot create a system that gives benifits to one group (hetero) and not give those same benifits to another group (homo).
You could make an argument, which I support, but would never happen, that the government should be involved in marriage to begin with. Marriage is a religious instatution binding two individuals together under god. It shouldn't come with tax breaks either, nor should having children for that matter.
We give benefits to people all the time while denying others the same benefit, where the hell have you been? Ever hear of welfare for example? Ever hear of different tax rates, which allow one individual to keep their earnings while limiting others, even though they do the same thing.
This thread isnt to discuss gay marriage, its about the 2nd amendment, and for the record, I support gay marriage, but ITS NOT A RIGHT, never has been. The government can deny ANYONE the PRIVILEDGE of marriage.
And unlike every other right protected by the constitution, this one has a contingency: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Once a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary, it becomes moot, unlike inalienable rights that have no contingency.
There is no "contingency" in allowing the PEOPLE to own arms.. Your response makes no sense,
We give benefits to people all the time while denying others the same benefit, where the hell have you been? Ever hear of welfare for example? Ever hear of different tax rates, which allow one individual to keep their earnings while limiting others, even though they do the same thing.
This thread isnt to discuss gay marriage, its about the 2nd amendment, and for the record, I support gay marriage, but ITS NOT A RIGHT, never has been. The government can deny ANYONE the PRIVILEDGE of marriage.
Even if that was the case, everyone has equal access to that privilege. That would be like saying everyone who's last name starts with 's' cannot get married because it is a privilege.
Even if that was the case, everyone has equal access to that privilege. That would be like saying everyone who's last name starts with 's' cannot get married because it is a privilege.
If it was a right, then they couldnt tell you that you cant marry your sister..
There have been numerous supreme court rulings on the matter, and they will approve gay marriage under the pursuit of happiness, which is not in the Constitution, thereby extending gay marriage as a PRIVILEDGE
This is the current argument of choice by the left. So there by we can make it illegal for the common citizen to own them. The founders never could have imagined or conceived of the internet, industrialized printing presses, TV or Radio. So there by the logic of the left only the police and Military need these media of mass publication with their high capacity of reach. When the first amendment was written, it would take days to print a few hand bills, now it can be shown in real time. The founders never intended for this to be the case.
We must have common sense speech regulation to stop all the talk and ideas from coming out so fast. How can a government or military respond to ideas from a high capacity media? They are simply out gunned.
When drafting 2ed amendment, the founding fathers thought about armed militias to defend the citizens of the new nation against an occupier like the British or an oppressive government. They also considered all those living at the frontier, isolated and sometimes defensless. For many the gun was for daily survival and putting food on the table. Nobody today needs guns in the crowded urban and suburban centers. People (most of us) buy food at supermarkets.
In the case of any foreign invasion you can forget about pistols and rifles. Same if case of a government takeover. Forget your pistols and be prepared with anti tank missiles, helicopters and artillery.
Basically the environment and circumstances changed so much that the 2ed amendment is no longer effective and misses the point.
You know, this thread is rather amazing for the misinformation it contains.
One, the "Founding Fathers" did not write the Constitution. They signed the Declaration of Independence.
Second, "The Framers" refer to the men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. While this group contained many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson was not part of said group. He was in France during the Constitutional Convention. While he did try to keep updated via letters, mail was slow in those days, and his input was very limited.
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.