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.
No, you really don't. Regulated had a different meaning then, it meant "in working order". And no one advocates that " a gang bangers" off the street should be allowed to buy, legally since they don't buy guns legally in any event, if he's a prohibited person.
Although the push to restore voting rights to convicted felons creates an interesting conundrum as it relates to firearms. Especially since voting isn't an enumerated right.
No, that's not it. I'm the epitome of "well regulated militia" in any context past or present. I'm a mentally competent military reservist who pays taxes, serves on jury duties, drives the speed limit, votes, etc.
I get to bear arms from what I'm reading.
If I think plants tell me what do to, then I'd not exactly be "in working order" regardless of what century I'm in. In that case it would not be me that you would expect to protect you from government oppression because that would be freaking crazy.
I understand the context, yet if the politicians of 1788 knew we could level entire cities with one nuclear weapon, I'm sure they would have left a caveat in there somewhere.
I take it to mean a "well regulated militia" as being someone conscripted by the state (colony, city, state, county or any other local authority) in which a majority of your peers in the community felt you could handle the responsibility and training of firearms, regardless if they're bows and arrows or nuclear weapons. Not any gang banger off the street.
Actually, they meant to include the gangbangers too.
You make an important point: If the people who wrote it wanted to make any exceptions (whether for gangbangers, nuclear weapons or etc.), they would have put a caveat in there somewhere.
But they didn't.
So the amendment meant, no exceptions. It meant it back then, and means the same thing today.
You are quite right that, if we want to put in any exceptions, we can. By modifying or repealing the 2nd amendment. But in 200+ years since it was written, we decided every time not to put any in.
Until we do, it remains a complete ban on govt putting ANY restrictions on guns, and on who can or can't own and carry them.
Actually, they meant to include the gangbangers too.
You make an important point: If the people who wrote it wanted to make any exceptions (whether for gangbangers, nuclear weapons or etc.), they would have put a caveat in there somewhere.
But they didn't.
So the amendment meant, no exceptions. It meant it back then, and means the same thing to day.
You are quite right that, if we want to put in any exceptions, we can. By modifying or repealing the 2nd amendment. But in 200+ years since it was written, we decided every time not to put any in.
Until we do, it remains a complete ban on govt putting ANY restrictions on guns, and on who can or can't own and carry them.
Except...I can't own a mortar, rocket launcher, tank, claymore, etc. Apparently some restrictions got in there somewhere.
But seriously, who wants a crazy cat lady with a nuclear arsenal?
I see this as following under the "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment. If you have PTSD and the military kicks you out, should you be able to buy mortar rounds? On the one hand you've given up your right to own military weapons, yet you're getting free treatment. Is it you they're expecting to defend against tyranny or invasion?
You have some weird ideas for a military guy. Having PTSD doesn't get you kicked out of the military, nor does it mean you should lose your right to have a gun. My dad retired from the Navy as a CMC. After two deployments to Iraq, he had nightmares and would jump at loud noises - a form of PTSD. Yet he was not, and is not a threat to anyone, and he IS NOT mentally ill. Fortunately, he doesn't have a representative payee, but even if he did, some Social Security worker having the means to decide he's mentally ill is a very, very terrible and wrong notion. PTSD should also not be an immediate disqualifier, and I have no idea what getting medical treatment through the VA has to do with owning a gun.
You have some weird ideas for a military guy. Having PTSD doesn't get you kicked out of the military, nor does it mean you should lose your right to have a gun. My dad retired from the Navy as a CMC. After two deployments to Iraq, he had nightmares and would jump at loud noises - a form of PTSD. Yet he was not, and is not a threat to anyone, and he IS NOT mentally ill. Fortunately, he doesn't have a representative payee, but even if he did, some Social Security worker having the means to decide he's mentally ill is a very, very terrible and wrong notion. PTSD should also not be an immediate disqualifier, and I have no idea what getting medical treatment through the VA has to do with owning a gun.
You're simply arguing over the definition of mentally ill.
If you thought somebody believed Elvis told them to kill their neighbor, would you agree the constitution should apply to them?
the Laws are just fine. Some states go overboard and not allow any and they are the ones who has crime problems.
All of this thread is trying to do is build anther false hood of opinion the anti guns want. Fact is guns who buy them legally are just fine. The exceptions are few.
If that's the case yes but he or she needs to brought before a judge and adjudged dangers. for them to confiscate there guns without going before a judge is a violation of there fourth amendment right No government flunky has the right to confiscate any private property with out a judges warrant.
I get what you're trying to say, but I'm willing to entertain the argument of why I should care.
I'm a right winger with a military background, and I'm inclined to lean towards your position, however logically I'm just not seeing it.
Even if Bernie Sanders was president, why should I care if he knows how many 9mm bullets I've purchased in the last 24 hours? Per the constitution, I believe I should be able to buy a grenade launcher with ammo, however I don't believe that extends to a crackhead down the street. I'm fully trained and competent and willing to take one for the team. I don't believe this right extends to everybody.
Then it's not a right, it's a privilege....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
I'm still not following. We're holding the Constitution's text as sacred, yet we're only focusing on one part of the sentence. A well regulated militia seems to be the entire premise of the entire amendment.
A well regulated militia was the reason why the right existed, it did not extend or restrict the scope of the right to a well regulated militia.
So, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What is a militia made up of? By definition, it's made of ordinary people called up from the general population to serve in a militaristic capacity. At the time of the founders, militia members often brought their own supplies / weapons with them to serve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
You may have a point, however lets say the "mentally ill" is a naturalized citizen with allegiances to ISIS. Shouldn't we be able to restrict their access to any firearm or ammunition they desire?
Sure, after you afford them their right to due process in a court of law. The government should not be able to just say "Ok, we suspect you have ties to terrorism, so you lose your right to own a gun. You prove otherwise if you want your rights back"
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.
