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 people manufacturing them, of course. If they should be owned by "everyone", then "everyone" should be able to afford them. Make them...$20...then maybe more people could afford to have them?
Of course, there's no need for ANYONE to own a weapon.
The felons have them anyway & I see no reason my kids shouldn't. They have proven for years to be responsible with guns.
Mentally deficient is difficult to quantify. I honestly think you must be somewhat addled but not likely a real danger to others. People who have proven thru their own actions that they cannot act responsibly should be treated as such.
Well, unfortunately for you, there ARE laws against children having weapons. Probably because most are too immature NOT to shoot other kids at school, if they DID have them. Or because they can't properly assess the threat level. You can go down for murder if your life was NOT at risk, you realize?
And mentally deficient is NOT hard at all to quantify. Medicine can define those who are retarded or insane. However, sometimes they catch the insane just a little too late--AFTER they've killed someone, for example.
Well, unfortunately for you, there ARE laws against children having weapons. Probably because most are too immature NOT to shoot other kids at school, if they DID have them. Or because they can't properly assess the threat level. You can go down for murder if your life was NOT at risk, you realize?
And mentally deficient is NOT hard at all to quantify. Medicine can define those who are retarded or insane. However, sometimes they catch the insane just a little too late--AFTER they've killed someone, for example.
Around here if a parent consents/permits it a person under 16 can have and carry a gun. Over 16 needs no parental permission. Seems to be working just fine.
The people manufacturing them, of course. If they should be owned by "everyone", then "everyone" should be able to afford them. Make them...$20...then maybe more people could afford to have them?
Of course, there's no need for ANYONE to own a weapon.
Plenty of used guns cheap. I picked up a nice muzzleloading pistol (.45) a few weeks ago for $25 at a yard sale. I've seen plenty of old Iver Johnson and similar topbreak revolvers in a similar price range. They'd get the job done in most instances.
Well, unfortunately for you, there ARE laws against children having weapons. Probably because most are too immature NOT to shoot other kids at school, if they DID have them. Or because they can't properly assess the threat level. You can go down for murder if your life was NOT at risk, you realize?
And mentally deficient is NOT hard at all to quantify. Medicine can define those who are retarded or insane. However, sometimes they catch the insane just a little too late--AFTER they've killed someone, for example.
Life is like that. You cant react to a crime until after it happens.
No I wouldn't permit my kids to walk around with guns at will. But I'v spent many days at ranges, camp & hiking thru the woods when they had guns & were perfectly responsible with them. Its kinda like booze, if you let kids learn about things they can make rational learned decisions with them. If you deny them something then when they get that forbidden fruit theres no telling what they will do.
I know what my kids will do with a gun because I know what they have done in the past with them.
For the past several years the most prevelant thing they do with guns is hit what they are shooting at.
Let's take a close look at the Court's interpretation of the the first clause of the Second Amendment in D. C. v. Heller. The words of the five judicial activists are in blue. My commentary is in red.
The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that
Commentary: The activists apparently recognize that rules of construction are necessary. I wonder if they will apply the rules that actually existed at the time the Constitution was being made?
“[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Commentary: That's probably not a bad rule. However, it wasn't one of the well established rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made. Is the Sprague Court going to be the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the U. S. Constitution. If so, why?
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
Commentary: Where does that rule come from? Did the Sprague Court endorse that rule or did the five activist just make it up?
...The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
Commentary: Why did the five activists cite Tiffany as the authority for their "rephrasing" of the Amendment, and then rephrase it differently than Tiffany did? Why is the Sprague Court no longer the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the U. S. Constitution? If Tiffany is now the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the Constitution, should we apply Tiffany's other rules, such as the one that says, "the meaning of the constitution... must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation...at the time the constitution was framed and adopted.
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace
Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
Commentary: At time the Constitution was made, there were well established common law rules of construction. Under those rules, other legal documents cannot be consider, unless the rules allow them to be considered.
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.
Commentary: According to the well established rules existent at the time the Constitution was made, when the reason for a law terminates,so does the law. Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?
The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause
Commentary: Under the rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made, if the cause that moved the legislator ceases to exist, so does the law. Now that we rely on a standing army, is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?
(“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.)
Commentary: The word "canons" doesn't mean "clergymen."
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris,
A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “
Commentary: Why is Tiffany no longer the authority on rules of construction?
‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).
Commentary: Why are Dwarris and Sedgwick no longer the supreme authorities on the rules of construction.
Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.
Commentary: A textual analysis using the wrong rules of construction is worthless.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,766,834 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
And Whitman? He was completely justified in owning guns, and look what HE did with them.
People, again, cannot be trusted.
And you can react to a crime before it happens--by using common sense and PREVENTATIVE measures.
Whitman was completely justified in owning guns, and he did something terrible with them. To you, that means that the millions of gun-owners who live their entire lives without ever acting irresponsibly must forfeit their rights in the name of "common-sense precaution." Sounds like common bullsh*t to me.
I just read about a family that was killed in a car accident, the driver that hit them was completely justified in owning and operating a vehicle and look what he did with it. We need to eliminate the threat of drivers from this nation as too many unfortunate deaths result from the practice of driving. Some people can not be trusted to operate their vehicles responsibly so we need to get rid of them all. That's common-sense precaution.
Gun related accidents and crime make up a tiny speck of the deaths in this nation when compared to tobacco, alcohol, overeating and driving. Why are some people so adamant that this is a great evil? A gun is a tool and can be applied as intended or otherwise. You can kill with a hammer, you can kill with a knife, you can kill with a car, you can kill with a gun. Lethal potential does not justify elimination.
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.
