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.
<snip>
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; <snip>
Great quote - all of it. But I wanted to highlight this specific passage. Of the "unalienable rights" listed, life is listed first. And yet it is that same unalienable right that is most in danger when guns are insufficiently regulated to keep them out of the hands of people most likely to harm themselves or others by those same guns: the mentally ill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
The point is the feelings of the founders is easy to know, you just have to read the words from said founders.
In most cases, I would agree. And I would say that the meaning of the 2nd amendment is therefore very clear, as it begins by noting the need for a "well-regulated militia."
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.
Any rational reading of this amendment would include reading ALL the words, and believing that the Founders had a reason to include, at the very start of the amendment, a well-regulated militia.
That said, ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by moionfire
And by the way the second amendment refers to militias, not private gun ownership.
Well, you might think so, and I might think so, and the Supreme Court up until 2008 thought so, but no longer.
In 1939, in the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court found that ".... [i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court found the opposite to be true - that the Second Amendment, despite any reference to a well-regulated militia, states the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
In summary, the most recent Supreme Court decision affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms, as well as the government's right to regulate this right.
Aren't people with mental health issues covered under Obamacare?
Dr.Ben Franklin said you also should be safe in your person so did he envision random drug screening tests before employment and the invasion of one of your basic rights ?
The Founding Father's wrote a wonderful living document of our individual freedoms it takes Potentates and Supreme Judges to re-interpret the words to their liking...
Great quote - all of it. But I wanted to highlight this specific passage. Of the "unalienable rights" listed, life is listed first. And yet it is that same unalienable right that is most in danger when guns are insufficiently regulated to keep them out of the hands of people most likely to harm themselves or others by those same guns: the mentally ill.
In most cases, I would agree. And I would say that the meaning of the 2nd amendment is therefore very clear, as it begins by noting the need for a "well-regulated militia."
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.
Any rational reading of this amendment would include reading ALL the words, and believing that the Founders had a reason to include, at the very start of the amendment, a well-regulated militia.
That said, ....
Well, you might think so, and I might think so, and the Supreme Court up until 2008 thought so, but no longer.
In 1939, in the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court found that ".... [i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court found the opposite to be true - that the Second Amendment, despite any reference to a well-regulated militia, states the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
In summary, the most recent Supreme Court decision affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms, as well as the government's right to regulate this right.
The right to life is the right to protect yourself from aggressors, the best way to do that is with a gun.
You need to read the definition of well regulated in the 18th century.
Modern day government and courts will always find a reason to increase the size of government and its control over the populace. For it has always been so shall it always be.
Then you owe it to your audience by breaking them down and giving readers your juxtaposed interpretation of Mason's, Coxe's, Hamilton's statements as outlined upthread.
I don't have an audience. Most reasonable people can see that those statements are ambiguous and up for debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The NRA isn't against regulations that restrict the rights of the mentally ill through due process.
So why is it unacceptable for me to say that the government is not against regulations that restrict the rights of gun owners through due process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
By that logic, you only have the right to free speech by quil and parchment. No free speech on tv pr phones or on the internet. Oh, and also, the 4th Amendment also doesn't apply to computers or phones or anything invented after the drafting of the BoR.... The government can search those things at will....
The problem here is people like you who won't even acknowledge that we do in fact have a legitimate right to own modern firearms for the very legit purpose of self defense...
You scoff and condescend people who believe this, you don't take their Constitution right, affirmed by the highest court in the land, seriously, so why should they negotiate with people like you to find a solution to this problem? Because of people like you, and your counterparts on the other side, nothing will ever get done.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. But it does not sound like "people like you" *want* anything to be done. You're constantly looking for scapegoats and reasons to horde firearms.
It's obvious and unfortunate that you have typecast and misinterpreted my main point. Yes, you can obviously own "a gun" IMHO and most others' opinions. When you obsess over "people and/or the government wanting to seize all your guns" when that is not the point, do you not see that you come across as paranoid conspiracy spreaders and how this lessens your credibility? Do you think it was helpful to the "opposition" to have the NRA show up immediately after Sandyhook?
But why can "no one from your side" even agree that *no one needs 13 guns.* Seems like basic logic to me
The ammendment states: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS *NOT* THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THEM.
We actually DONT have the right to free speech on the Internet or TV. For the radio and TV, there is FCC. The FBI monitors Internet. Just last night on FB, someone was suicidal and reaching out for help. It was reported to FB by someone else and the strings "disappeared." I've had many private websites take down stuff I've written. And we all know about our phones, the government and NSA......
Seriously, please tell me, how many firearms do you think is reasonable to own in the context "having the right to bear?" 5? 10? 50? 100?
A million?
We're merely in between mass shootings right now. Can any boy on the right seriously deny this?
But the founding fathers left constitutionality with the supreme court.....
You'd be okay with the supreme court ruling that gun ownership is a privilege not a right huh?
They can't do that. They have no authority to take away a right that is enumerated in the Constitution. All they can do is rule on LAWS passed that interfere with that right. Some people here need to go back to school, we have a very dumb populace and it's getting dumber.
No I'm arguing that the founding fathers setup who is to decide constitutionality per the Constitution..... it's funny how your far righties love the Constitution until it challenges you .... I am sorry if you think your opinion matters more than the supreme court.... Thats not how its setup.....
lol,you have no idea how it all works. Like I said, dumb, dumb, dumb populace here in the USA. SCOTUS does NOT, repeat does NOT make rulings on if an amendment is Constitutional or not. They rule on LAWS!
As always with discussions on this topic, the most affected population - the "mentally ill" - is left completely voiceless.
I'm branded "schizophrenic" myself , been involuntarily committed etc. and to me this whole topic of gun control via mental health is a disgusting sham. I've said this before but the fact is that most people who've never been subjected to this ridiculous system don't get it. It's a false construct to begin with. There is no "mind" can that be diseased in the first place (the "mind" is just an abstract construct, not a bodily organ). It's just bigotry against people who are socially awkward, idiosyncratic, obnoxious, anti-social or otherwise undesirable.
And how can it be determined that someone is "lacking the mental faculty to follow regulations"? Is there an objective scientific standard for such a thing? No.
I don't. Most are miseducated quacks who only care about controlling people, maintaining their professional authority/stature, and making money.
The government depriving me of my Constitutional right to own a gun because I was assigned an arbitrary LABEL that not only can't be medically proven, but is nothing but a stigmatizing value judgement is what's really insane.
Absolute truth, and this is why I left the mental death system within months of my initial exposure to it. It's a ludicrous twilight zone that diminishes people to sub-human status, but the misinformed and miseducated blindly support it thinking it's helpful. It's a giant scam.
Um, no, some people are just downright crazy and dangerous. Stop making excuses.
Sorry, whats your point. Although, I love the part about all men being created equal. That excluded women until they finally had the right to vote....a first step. And when was that lol certainly not in the constitution
Well first off, women are not men..
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.
