Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2009, 04:47 AM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,800 posts, read 10,107,338 times
Reputation: 7366

Advertisements

What part of
Quote:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
does the government not understand?

It's basic comprehension here folks ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2009, 04:55 AM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,785,898 times
Reputation: 1182
All people of this country that have and exercise free will had better take notice that they are losing their rights by increments....

Any Constitutional Right that can be successfully attacked watered down or "interpreted" by politically correct forces of one era or another is a right that is near to being lost...
One right lost will mean that the others can fall in the same fashion.
If you feel that we can "do away" with the Second Amendment...what's to stop some completely mad fringe group, firmly ensconced in our government from successfully attacking the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment or any of the others......
Incremental right loss has got to be the scariest trend in American politics....and the negative impacts for ALL Americans go far beyond the Second Amendment....

Last edited by Happy Cells; 11-02-2009 at 05:02 AM.. Reason: Imagine trying to live with out the 14th Amendment...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 04:56 AM
 
1,747 posts, read 1,953,436 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
What part of does the government not understand?

It's basic comprehension here folks ...
They understand that they can "infringe" all they want and the Constitution is just a piece of used toilet paper to them anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 09:15 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,160 posts, read 15,628,539 times
Reputation: 17150
Federal,State and local restrictions on firearms ownership are useless, knee jerk, measures done in a limp attempt to create an illusion of safety. This view of firearms being at the root of all crime is getting old. There are far more HONEST people in this country that own and use firearms than there are criminals, so, since they are the easiest crowd to find, and they generally obey laws, they are the only ones effected by this useless legislation. Such garbage has the bad guys dancing in the streets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2009, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,553 posts, read 2,436,015 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sign View Post
I've heard this too about NJ and I think.....it has a lot to do with the population density of the state?
I believe that most hunting there is restricted to the use of shotguns, etc. as a higher caliber rifle, obviously will fire a round......a much farther distance, thus subjecting people to the possibility of a stray round hitting them or their property?
Either way......anyone who wants to own a handgun for protection, anywhere in America.....should be able to if they aren't some convicted felon with a violent record.
It's been that way since at least the 60's (probably longer, that's just as far back as I can confirm). I don't think population has anything to do with it....of course it's more populated now but, even still, NJ has a lot of places where you can hunt and few people live (but, animals still do).....like up north or pretty much the bottom half (OK, the bottom third) of the state (in the middle) is all marsh land. Depending upon the what you're hunting like deer, there's a season for bow, shotgun (short) and rifle (extremely short)....or at least it used to be that way.

I agree with you though....I don't own any and I don''t hunt but, if someone wants to own a handgun for protection, I think they should be able to. Look at the law in San Francisco....remember the trouble Jose Conseco got in for having one in his car while it was parked some where on the street (someone noticed it and reported it).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2009, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,919,023 times
Reputation: 1701
activist judges... lets vote on it! *smirk*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2009, 01:58 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


And does the amendment not reference a well regulated militia?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2009, 06:27 AM
 
843 posts, read 1,298,258 times
Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
Good post. I knew Mason said this just wasn't sure about the exact quote.

I don't understand these people, including politicians and judges, that want to interpret the Constitution. Seems to me, it means what it says. It doesn't nedd interpretation unless one wishes to cahnge it's meaning.

The Constitution means what it says folks. It doesn't take a law degree to figure it out. It's written in English.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2009, 06:44 AM
 
103 posts, read 118,462 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthPoleMarathoner View Post
Good post. I knew Mason said this just wasn't sure about the exact quote.

I don't understand these people, including politicians and judges, that want to interpret the Constitution. Seems to me, it means what it says. It doesn't nedd interpretation unless one wishes to cahnge it's meaning.

The Constitution means what it says folks. It doesn't take a law degree to figure it out. It's written in English.

I'll add to this, that if an interpretation is needed, there seems to be documents by the writers of the constitution with the clarifications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2009, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Maine
898 posts, read 1,402,389 times
Reputation: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
What does a "well regulated militia" become in 'modern language'?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

It means exactly what it says, that a well regulated (organized, disciplined, trained) militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It is a statement of fact, not a granting of power to the government. If you read the Constitution and its amendments, you'll notice that any time the government was granted a power, it's usually preceded by something like "Congress shall have the power to..." as in Article 1, Section 8 or the 16th Amendment.

The Bill of Rights confers no regulatory authority to the government, it only restricts it.

Now one can argue that the Bill of Rights was only intended to restrict the federal government, not the states. Maybe the 1st Amendment could be argued in that manner, because it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." but it's the only one of the Bill of Rights that mentions Congress. The 2nd Amendment has that pesky "Shall not be infringed" clause. Shall not be infringed means just that, shall not be infringed, it doesn't state that congress shall not infringe, as it does in the 1st Amendment, it states shall not be infringed.

No state has lawful authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The founders recognized that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary to protect and preserve liberty for future generations. Many states even reiterate this right in their constitutions. I like Maine's rendition in Article 1, Section 16 of the state constitution:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 1, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution
To keep and bear arms.
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Emphasis added to the "never be questioned" part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top