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.
a criminal does not have gun rights. a person who has served time and is not a violent crime should be given gun rights back. the petty es clinton caused alot of people to lose there rights illegally, i wish the nra would work for returning lost gun rights taken away by an illegal law.
Now we're into the crux of the thing. If legislators can deny gun rights to criminals, and restore them to those who have served their time, unless they were violent crimes, they can deny them to anybody else, too, for any convoluted combination of factors. What makes the Clinton law illegal? I'm not sure I follow you on this. Exactly who can have their gun rights taken away, and exactly who cannot, according to your reading of the law?
WELL REGULATED
In an amendment that was only only 27 words long, why do you suppose the founders thought it was so important to put those two words in there? Do you think it was because they thought the body of armed Americans ought to be, or was presumed to be, well regulated?
Suppose there was a similar amendment, granting the rights of private sector pharmacists to dispense drugs. If they had said "a well regulated pharmacy being essential . . .", would you have interpreted that to mean that just anybody was perfectly free to distribute any drugs at any time or place, and regulation of pharmacy had never entered their minds?
WELL REGULATED
In an amendment that was only only 27 words long, why do you suppose the founders thought it was so important to put those two words in there? Do you think it was because they thought the body of armed Americans ought to be, or was presumed to be, well regulated?
Suppose there was a similar amendment, granting the rights of private sector pharmacists to dispense drugs. If they had said "a well regulated pharmacy being essential . . .", would you have interpreted that to mean that just anybody was perfectly free to distribute any drugs at any time or place, and regulation of pharmacy had never entered their minds?
your awnsers are within this website, they have painstakenly pulled apart the second amendment, and looked at the meaning of each individual word in the context of the english language as it was spoken and written at the time of the drafting.
so "well regulated" did not mean in control or training of the government, it meant to keep in good working condition
"...And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts. "
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Tin knocker, your post is (if I may borrow your phrase) the most ignorant I have ever read in my life.
Having a handgun in your -possession "indicates a person of verified character & responsibility willing to actually be responsible for his/her personal saftey". Yeah, OK. Any person of verified character can buy one for twenty bucks on the street in Detroit tonight, in order to be responsible for his personal safety. Like shooting rattlesnakes on Woodward Avenue. How many people doing hard time in the state penitentiary have never owned a handgun?
Also, Please name one state in the United States where a licensed hunter can legally bag game in season with a handgun. Defend your contention that a handgun is "designed and intended" for hunting use.
You can borrow it, but obviously are too ignorant to bother researching even the simplest of the things you rant aganst.
We I think are speaking of LAW ABIDING gun owners rights here. Your knowledge of the Detroit underworld notwithstanding an honest person needs to undergo backround checks just to BUY a gun, let alone get a permit to carry. I'm not very interested in what criminals do or how they do it as I am not one. I also dont think that our rights should be limited due to criminal activity.
There are many handguns that are designed exclusively for hunting, Thompson center makes a Contender & Encore, both created start to finish for hunting, Savage I believe still makes a bolt operated handgun for hunting & Remington among others has done so recently. Those are mostly single shot handguns designed for hunting, Ruger, S&W, Taurus & others make large bore revolvers again designed with hunting in mind from the onset.
I cant just spit out which states permit handgun hunting because I'v never tried to compile a list. But I'v hunted in ME, VT & NH with a handgun & know its legal in NY state.
As I said, your opinion simply reeks of ignorance of the subject matter at hand. In other words you dont know squat about guns, their uses, how they function or the laws that govern them.
You're right, many states do allow handgun hunting, most with fairly rigid restrictions, and if you hunt with a handgun, I bet it's not the one you keep under your pillow, but is a very specialized product for hunting purposes, and the same for the ammunition. Nevertheless, my point was that the ordinary handgun, likely to be in the possession of a homeowner, was not designed or intended to be used for that purpose. If I walk into a gunshop and tell them I want a handgun, for no other puspose than because I have a constitutional right to have one, they are highly likely to show me a gun that was primarily designed to be effective for shooting human beings. Handguns were invented for military use, and soldiers are not in the business of shooting tin cans or varmints. They shoot people, and the handgun was designed for that purpose.
If you want a handgun that will kill human beings, I respect your constitutional right to have one. But I do not respect your intent, unless your intent is to ensure that the well-regulated militia does not fall under exclusive government control.
Silly man.
Any gun that can kill a deer or bear can kill a person. Do you think bullets know the difference?
I imagine the intent of every law abiding gun owner is their own buisness & until they break a law its only their buisness.
You talk in circles. If any guns are more permissable than others in light of the Second Amendment it would be military type arms. The very guns that you & other clueless whiners cry about are the MOST obviously afforded second ammendment protection. Thats where the militia clause is most important. If the intent is to preserve the ability to raise up a militia then the guns needed would be military in nature. In todays world thats semi auto handguns & automatic rifles.
They said "Arms" because they means arms, not hunting arms, not personal arms, just arms. They couldn't care less wether it was an antiquated matchlock or a state of the art Kentucky rifle, you could have, carry & use it as you pleased until YOU PROVED otherwise by commiting a real crime. Then they would hang you & nobody need worry about you getting one in the future. If you never hurt anyone you could grow old with a gun in your belt.
The only gun control one should have is through the training that I think gun owners should receive. That is, they should be able to properly control their weapon.
Who gets to define what a "hate group" is? What about the free speech ramifications of this provision? The water's very deep where you're treading with this one.
What does credit or how long someone's been at their job have to do with anything? Who gets to define what that "battery of mental and gun safety tests" consists of, and who's going to administer them? How do you reconcile your statement above with the 2nd Amendment?
You claim to be "against gun control and gun bans", but everything you stated beyond the first line of your post indicates that you're anything but.
How about going back and reading my entire post instead of just cutting and pasting certain parts of it.
Wayne LaPierre and many of my fellow NRA lifetime members share these same views. Why dont you?
So are you okay with people who are members of hate groups and gangs having guns? I am not okay with this and neither is the NRA.
Are you okay with convicted felons having guns? I am not and neither is the NRA.
Are you okay with just anyone have a concealed carry permit? I am not. But I do think that concealed carry permits should be much easier to obtain for those of us who ARE law abiding citizens who do not associate with criminals, criminal organizations, felons, etc.
How about going back and reading my entire post instead of just cutting and pasting certain parts of it.
Wayne LaPierre and many of my fellow NRA lifetime members share these same views. Why dont you?
So are you okay with people who are members of hate groups and gangs having guns? I am not okay with this and neither is the NRA.
Are you okay with convicted felons having guns? I am not and neither is the NRA.
Are you okay with just anyone have a concealed carry permit? I am not. But I do think that concealed carry permits should be much easier to obtain for those of us who ARE law abiding citizens who do not associate with criminals, criminal organizations, felons, etc.
Thats because neither you, nor the NRA actually support the second amendment. You both seem elitist at best & snobbish at worst.
Violent felons I can deal with but people that are racist or otherwise unsavory but dont commit crimes are within their rights. Theres also boatloads of felons that never violently hurt a fly.
I am a member of the NRA only so I can effect change there too. Every major gun control law has been endorsed by them. Every one.
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.
