rory
Junior Member
Starting Five - Founding Member
just wonder what i'm thinking of.....
Posts: 69
|
Post by rory on Dec 4, 2008 19:39:59 GMT -7
against it.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 4, 2008 19:40:25 GMT -7
why?
|
|
rory
Junior Member
Starting Five - Founding Member
just wonder what i'm thinking of.....
Posts: 69
|
Post by rory on Dec 4, 2008 19:42:24 GMT -7
everyone has the right to bear arms (2nd am.) .
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 4, 2008 19:45:51 GMT -7
everyone?
okay...what does "control" mean here? context please
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 4, 2008 20:25:04 GMT -7
Control hum? depends on which politician you ask.
Everything from no gun ownership (IE Washington DC attempt) to everyone must have one (read about a town somewhere with this and believe in Switzerland still true for 18 to 60 year old men)
To Limits on types/quantities/magazine size etc and registering etc
Control like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!
By the way - I'm all for the wording of the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary..., the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." (OK I'm doing this from memory - too lazy to google
|
|
|
Post by theunturnedstone on Dec 16, 2008 16:55:44 GMT -7
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.
(Good memory, Snil)
This is the part that people most often skip over when they want to rail against gun control: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free state..."
The fact is, there is a vivid disclaimer to the Right to bear arms. Since we no longer need or use militia, therefore we have no need of the amendment.
Now, I am personally not against citizens owning guns BUT... does anybody really believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover ownership and use of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry? I think not. Even IF you want to resurrect a right that no longer applies, by definition, you cannot read more into it than was written and try to superimpose it onto situations that did not exist at its inception.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 16, 2008 17:19:59 GMT -7
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. (Good memory, Snil) This is the part that people most often skip over when they want to rail against gun control: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free state..." The fact is, there is a vivid disclaimer to the Right to bear arms. Since we no longer need or use militia, therefore we have no need of the amendment. Now, I am personally not against citizens owning guns BUT... does anybody really believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover ownership and use of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry? I think not. Even IF you want to resurrect a right that no longer applies, by definition, you cannot read more into it than was written and try to superimpose it onto situations that did not exist at its inception. Actually there is no need to skip over any part of it to defend a citizens right to arms. The issue usually revolves around the use of commas instead of a semi-colon. Also the definition of a militia at the time of the writing of the bill of rights was different than what we define it now. The main point is the last part ..."the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." At the time of its writing the militia were the citizens and they provided their own arms, therefore the reason people were granted an undeniable right to bear arms was to insure a militia was armed Also, other writings by the authors and debaters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights clear explain their position on the necessity of citizens keeping the right to bear arms.
|
|
|
Post by theunturnedstone on Dec 16, 2008 19:21:49 GMT -7
I disagree. The main point is the statement in its entirety. The writers worked very hard to choose language that effectively and concisely conveyed their points. To say now that half of it is irrelevant because of syntax and squabbling over punctuation is nothing short of ridiculous. It means now what it always meant and, therefore, does not apply (as written) today. I do believe that lawful citizens should be able to enjoy the privilege of gun ownership - for hunting, for protection of themselves and their property- provided they also exercise safety and good judgment. Therein lies the rub...
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 16, 2008 19:53:16 GMT -7
I disagree. The main point is the statement in its entirety. The writers worked very hard to choose language that effectively and concisely conveyed their points. To say now that half of it is irrelevant because of syntax and squabbling over punctuation is nothing short of ridiculous. It means now what it always meant and, therefore, does not apply (as written) today. I do believe that lawful citizens should be able to enjoy the privilege of gun ownership - for hunting, for protection of themselves and their property- provided they also exercise safety and good judgment. Therein lies the rub... I did not say it was irrelevant, and the squabbling over punctuation took place among Supreme Court Justices and Lawyers appearing before them. If you read the debates on this issue when the Bill of Rights was debated, it is clear that there was a distrust of all Government and that an armed citizentry was considered an additional check on tyranny. As to uses of a gun today - all that you listed. Now gun control is fine to regulate the types of firearms and even registration and licensing. However laws that do not ban ownership per se, but restrict it in such a manner that the effect is the same cross the line, or current Supreme Court ruled as much recently in DC
|
|
|
Post by theunturnedstone on Dec 16, 2008 20:12:22 GMT -7
A little distrust of Government is not necessarily a bad thing. For the record, I do agree that gun control should be used merely as a regulating system and that anything resembling a ban on all guns crosses the line.
|
|