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.
Absolutely yes. We have to have a license to drive that involves passing a test. We also have to keep our cars registered (and in many states tested for safety on a regular basis). Our licenses to drive have to be kept up-to-date, too. Failure to do these things carries heavy fines. We even have to have our pets licensed! A firearm in the hands of anyone who is simply able to purchase it, without any testing or registration, is absurd. It's a piece of equipment that is every bit as dangerous as a vehicle.
Which of our other "constitutional rights" can kill someone?
Looks like you put a lot of thought into that. The analysis and insight is amazing.
Understand this (and I hope it doesn't cause the Hoplophobes heads to explode), killing someone is the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment. Not target shooting. Not duck hunting. But killing people. Inconvenient truth, I know.
We can't say we take public safety seriously and oppose gun safety. Not only would safety training keep guns out of the hands of people who can't properly use them, it would help to make the armed more effective in defending themselves. It's a no-brainer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Study up a bit on the meaning of that word, in the context of the 2nd amendment, at the time it was written, and get back to me.
It doesn't mean what you think it does.
Also, in that sentence, what noun is being qualified by the adjective "regulated"?
If the Second Amendment were so cut and dry people wouldn't be debating the wording of it to this day. And why should the Second Amendment only be interpreted as how we think the founding fathers intended it to be back then? We interpret the Constitution to fit our ever-evolving world and that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. That's why the Constitution can be amended and changed. The Constitution was never meant to be static and dogmatic.
We can't say we take public safety seriously and oppose gun safety.
Opposing a test to exercise a 2nd amendment right doesn't equal an opposition to gun safety. That's as ridiculous as claiming that a opposing a literacy test to vote means that one supports illiteracy.
Quote:
Not only would safety training keep guns out of the hands of people who can't properly use them, it would help to make the armed more effective in defending themselves. It's a no-brainer.
Learning to safely use a firearm is rather easy. There would be few that couldn't do it, if they chose to do so.
Quote:
If the Second Amendment were so cut and dry people wouldn't be debating the wording of it to this day. And why should the Second Amendment only be interpreted as how we think the founding fathers intended it to be back then? We interpret the Constitution to fit our ever-evolving world and that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. That's why the Constitution can be amended and changed. The Constitution was never meant to be static and dogmatic.
Read District of Columbia v. Heller, and then readMcDonald v. City of Chicago and report back here.
For the TL;DR crowd, they are two Supreme Court Decisions clarifying that the 2nd amendment protects the right of an INDIVIDUAL to "keep and bear arms." Not the militia. Not the National Guard. The individual. And no test is required.
Those Supreme Court decisions are quite clear, and are consistent with the meaning of the 2nd from the very beginning.
Opposing a test to exercise a 2nd amendment right doesn't equal an opposition to gun safety. That's as ridiculous as claiming that a opposing a literacy test to vote means that one supports illiteracy.
You say this, but then you go on to say that people who don't agree with a particular interpretation of the Amendment hate freedom. You can't have it both ways without being a hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Read District of Columbia v. Heller, and then readMcDonald v. City of Chicago and report back here.
For the TL;DR crowd, they are two Supreme Court Decisions clarifying that the 2nd amendment protects the right of an INDIVIDUAL to "keep and bear arms." Not the militia. Not the National Guard. The individual. And no test is required.
Those Supreme Court decisions are quite clear, and are consistent with the meaning of the 2nd from the very beginning.
Sorry freedom haters.
So you speak for the founding fathers? You know exactly what they intended when they drafted the Second Amendment and that they would have no issue with the way it's being used today? That's awfully presumptuous of you. And I'm just going to assume that you agree with every single Supreme Court decision ever.
You say this, but then you go on to say that people who don't agree with a particular interpretation of the Amendment hate freedom. You can't have it both ways without being a hypocrite.
Nothing hypocritical about it. The 2nd amendment is the foundation of freedom in this country. Attempting to gut it is CLEARLY anti-freedom.
Quote:
So you speak for the founding fathers? You know exactly what they intended when they drafted the Second Amendment and that they would have no issue with the way it's being used today? That's awfully presumptuous of you.
If one reads not just the 2nd amendment but the other writings of the founders with regard to the gun issue, their intentions were abundantly clear. Unless words don't really have meaning, and we can claim that they mean whatever we want them to.
Study up a bit on the history. I think you'd find it fascinating.
Quote:
And I'm just going to assume that you agree with every single Supreme Court decision ever.
Nope. But all of us are subject to them just the same.
Nothing hypocritical about it. The 2nd amendment is the foundation of freedom in this country. Attempting to gut it is CLEARLY anti-freedom.
What an absurd view. You think the right to own guns is more important than the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
If one reads not just the 2nd amendment but the other writings of the founders with regard to the gun issue, their intentions were abundantly clear. Unless words don't really have meaning, and we can claim that they mean whatever we want them to.
Study up a bit on the history. I think you'd find it fascinating.
You should do the same. The founders never wanted the Constitution to be static and dogmatic. And they were also men of their time, not omniscient gods. They were imperfect people whose views were the product of the time. They owned slaves, fathered children out of wedlock, etc. If we were to model ourselves and this nation after them so fully we would be the worse for it.
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.
