Gun control questions (Representatives, Congress, Afghanistan, borders)
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.
Why is it always gun control. It should really be bullet control, or even better gunpowder control. Then what good would a gun do without bullets. How could you make a bullet without gunpowder. Hmmmm
They are attempting that now in California with stupid restrictions on ammo sales, it is unconstitutional and draconian.
I think history has shown that a small band of less than adequately armed revolutionaries can, and in fact, have achieved victory over tyranny.
Or even unarmed - look at Gandhi. Ideas and thought's can ultimately be more powerful than weapons. However, if comes to a firefight, it doesn't matter how well armed the US citizenry is.
They are attempting that now in California with stupid restrictions on ammo sales, it is unconstitutional and draconian.
Unconstitutional - doubtful. Even in DC v. Heller the court said arms can be regulated by government (nothing I've read said they were enacting a ban).
Draconian - No. The word "draconian" means a severe punishment not fitting of a crime. If you got 30 lashings and 10 years in prison for violating a regulation on purchasing bullets, that would be draconian.
If I want to shoot more than 50 rounds a month at the range, i am not being allowed to, that is unfair punishment (punished for excercising a right no less) and restricting my constitutional right.
What if they tried to make a law that says you can only use your right to free speech twice a month?
My interpretation of the second Amendment is that it intended people to be allowed to bear arms for state militia purposes. As such each state should be allowed allow/disallow arms according to what they see fit. All I see it as meaning is that the federal government cannot infringe on states rights to establish militias and allow their populations to arm.
My interpretation of the second Amendment is that it intended people to be allowed to bear arms for state militia purposes. As such each state should be allowed allow/disallow arms according to what they see fit. All I see it as meaning is that the federal government cannot infringe on states rights to establish militias and allow their populations to arm.
You would have been correct from 1791-2008 as that's how the 2nd Amendment was interpreted. That changed in 2008 with DC v. Heller.
My interpretation of the second Amendment is that it intended people to be allowed to bear arms for state militia purposes. As such each state should be allowed allow/disallow arms according to what they see fit. All I see it as meaning is that the federal government cannot infringe on states rights to establish militias and allow their populations to arm.
Thats kinda convoluted isn't it?
How could a state be guarenteed the ability to raise a militia if it were permitted to outlaw the way a militia was armed?
It was really intended to make certain NO Gov't body could disarm the people, municipal, state or Fed.
It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Because infringing that right removes militia formation from the realm of possibility.
Its actually been treated as you say for about a century now, since the late 1930's anyway. States & municipalities have stomped all over a basic civil right.
Should the need arise no state in the union could muster a reasonable semblance of a fighting force from the civilian population. Thats exactly what the founders of this country did not want.
If we elect a Hitler, we are screwed because of folks who accepted the flawed interpretation of a simple statement.
Our states have given up their right to sovereignty while they infringed our rights as guaranteed & protected by the Constitution. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Thats kinda convoluted isn't it?
How could a state be guarenteed the ability to raise a militia if it were permitted to outlaw the way a militia was armed?
It was really intended to make certain NO Gov't body could disarm the people, municipal, state or Fed.
It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Because infringing that right removes militia formation from the realm of possibility.
Its actually been treated as you say for about a century now, since the late 1930's anyway. States & municipalities have stomped all over a basic civil right.
Should the need arise no state in the union could muster a reasonable semblance of a fighting force from the civilian population. Thats exactly what the founders of this country did not want.
If we elect a Hitler, we are screwed because of folks who accepted the flawed interpretation of a simple statement.
Our states have given up their right to sovereignty while they infringed our rights as guaranteed & protected by the Constitution. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Not at all. If you look at how the constitution was originally intended it is the only argument that makes sense. Originally the constitution only applied to the federal government and its powers and restrictions. This was the case until 1868 and the 14th amendment.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect states from the federal government disarming them. Remember this was introduced at a time when states were much more independent then they are now and the entire purpose of the bill of rights was to protect states and their citizens from federal tyranny.
While it does say the right of the people it also says in "order to form a well regulated militia" Remember again this was written when the constitution did not apply to individuals. This was the common interpretation dating back to the early 19th century in Barron V Baltimore 1833. Now if you want to argue the 14th Amendment changes the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is a whole different can of worms, but in the end it doesn't due to the first clause "in order to form a well regulated militia, which both you and Scalia convienently forgot existed in your statements.
Additionally there were no gun laws until the 1930s and it was never an issue until then so it was simply never tested. This suposed "basic right" you speak of did not exist until 2008.
Additionally the founders did expect states to raise militias for their defense in times of need. I do not think they ever intended a standing army and from their letters they thought such an army would doom the Republic that is why state no longer are able to raise militias. As to states loosing their sovereignty we became far more federalized post-civil war now you can argue against the 13-15th amendments, but I think they were necessary to preserve the union and are important for expanding individual freedom.
As to the sovereign states with people having guerenteed constitutional rights that never existed. Again prior to the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to citizens states had absolute power to infringe on people's rights with impunity and only the federal government had to live up to the bill of rights. As an example Maryland banned free speech as to slavery. Several southern States banned the Republican party in those states, which was deemed in their authority and until the 1820s several states had state chuches. The days of individual freedom gurenteed, from the states by the constitution, existing side by side with sovereign states never existed.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-01-2009 at 07:53 PM..
They are attempting that now in California with stupid restrictions on ammo sales, it is unconstitutional and draconian.
Correct and such 'laws' should be ignored.
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.
