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.
if you dont want the mentally ill or convicted felons to have firearms then keep them commited or in jail.
some states already allow their convicted felons to vote again after serving their sentence, and if a felon completes their sentence (not on parole), then I dont mind them becoming a citizen again complete with all rights and responsibilites.
mentally ill? keep them commited until they are considered competent, then who cares if they have a firearm or not.
thats why you go to jail, but after you have served your sentence then you should have all your rights returned to you.
if you dont want a felon to have all their rights returned to them, then keep them in jail.
strange thing, when republicans are in power then the Constitution is an involate document not capable of being changed, but when democrats get into power, then the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and capable of being changed.
I think that you should amend your TITLE to read....
"Strict Gun Laws Don't Work In The United States"
Because in other countries (most notably the UK) they work very well. But Americans are not Brits and it isn't going to work here. People who would rob or kill would not think twice about breaking the law to carry an illegal weapon. Strict gun laws only hurt the law-abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves.
20yrsinBranson
I think what a lot of people don't fully understand is that the US was the first Nation founded when firearms had become commonplace, or that our expansion counted on firearms.
If one didn't live in a city, one owned a firearm, whether for hunting or self protection from predators or mauraders.
We are, and have since our colonial period, been a "Gun Culture".
Europe, and especially England, has enver had the chance to build up such a firearm centraic culture, as they were already well established nations by the time firearms became common, and lacked any real "new frontiers" to conquer within their borders.
Firearms were almost exclusively found within the realms of the military and wealthy. There simply wasn't the opportunity for guns to become ingrained with society.
I think what a lot of people don't fully understand is that the US was the first Nation founded when firearms had become commonplace, or that our expansion counted on firearms.
If one didn't live in a city, one owned a firearm, whether for hunting or self protection from predators or mauraders.
We are, and have since our colonial period, been a "Gun Culture".
Europe, and especially England, has enver had the chance to build up such a firearm centraic culture, as they were already well established nations by the time firearms became common, and lacked any real "new frontiers" to conquer within their borders.
Firearms were almost exclusively found within the realms of the military and wealthy. There simply wasn't the opportunity for guns to become ingrained with society.
I think too many people fail to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment was created to acknowledge and protect the right of citizens to defend themselves from a tryrannical government. Folks today think it only applies to hunting, self-defense, and sport shooting; which is, erroneous. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing and our Constitution is a marvel of foresight.
I think too many people fail to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment was created to acknowledge and protect the right of citizens to defend themselves from a tryrannical government. Folks today think it only applies to hunting, self-defense, and sport shooting; which is, erroneous. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing and our Constitution is a marvel of foresight.
I think too many people read the necon media version into the Second.
No where does it state it is in defense from an oppresive US governemnt.
Militias were formed to protect against outside invasion.
What happened is that militias were being formed, by locals banding together for self defense against Indian attacks mainly. The British began seeing militias as a threat to themselves, so they were going, house to house in some cases, disarming the residents. The Crown wouldn't allow many people to own firearms, because they feared a rebellion.
Guess they were right. Thats why the battles of Lexington and Concord took place. British redcoat troops were going to take arms and powder from local militias, and they fought back.
The second amendment was to allow citizens the right to bear arms, for self defense, and organize militias. This was not only to protect our land from invasion, but it was also to keep the federal government from taking arms from the public.
Thats why our standing army, in reality, is unconstitutional in my opinion, during times of peace. We have always had a small standing army, but the people protected their land from invasion.
Of course today, things have changed. We have the worlds most powerful standing army. So Americans don't need to defend their homeland, because we allow the federal government to do that. Of course, thats until the public largely disagrees with the federal government, then they call in the troops on us.
Do you have some proof to back up your opinion?
And anyone not in agreement with your opinion is a "neocon"?
Firstly, doesn't matter if one is a neocon or not. If something resonates with a person, the source is compeltely moot. Doesn't make that source, or the propeganda, any less a pile of smelly bovine excremient.
Secondly, my proof is right there in the same document. Read the Constitution, become enlightened.
Firstly, doesn't matter if one is a neocon or not. If something resonates with a person, the source is compeltely moot. Doesn't make that source, or the propeganda, any less a pile of smelly bovine excremient.
Secondly, my proof is right there in the same document. Read the Constitution, become enlightened.
.
Heavy on the gibberish with a side order of unable to answer.
Firstly, doesn't matter if one is a neocon or not. If something resonates with a person, the source is compeltely moot. Doesn't make that source, or the propeganda, any less a pile of smelly bovine excremient.
Secondly, my proof is right there in the same document. Read the Constitution, become enlightened.
Perhaps you might want to read the current and controlling interpretation of it:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
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.
