Right to Keep & Bear Arms

You mean like the neoconservative activist judges on the Supreme Court used Heller to overturn earlier decisions? All it would take is for a another court to find that they did that and its back to the previous ruling. And we already know what that was for EIGHTY years.

But you know what I don't see you arguing at all? That the language of the 2A specifies that it applies to any individual rather than to "the people" a PLURALITY. All I'm saying is that if you don't like the way the law is written then get it changed. In the meantime it says what it says. And all your whining and complaining doesn't affect so much as a comma.

 

I'm sure you can find all kinds of arguments from all kinds of sources. But ALL of that is irrelevant. There is ONLY one thing that matters. What does the law say? Not what do you wish it said. Not even, what did they mean for it to say (although that does have some weight). But after all the discussion was done WHAT DID THEY WRITE INTO THE LAW?

 

Why are you assuming that because Joe Citizen has a gun that somehow turns him unstable and might just shoot somebody at any moment?

You seem to be basing all of this off the idea that because someone has a gun, they're inclined to shoot somebody...just because they have a gun. If the person isn't violent, how does giving them a gun make that any different? People don't just turn into psychopaths because you give them a weapon.

And no, no one can get shot if there's no guns around - so, whoever plans on doing the killing will pick a different weapon.

Uh, yeah of course you're more likely to be shot....because guns are common in America, so it's the weapon of choice. If there weren't any guns the most common murder weapon would be something else, like a knife.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anybody who's used a firearm to defend themselves that banning guns is a good idea. Or, in your mind, is trading their means of defence for safety from accidents (firearm accidents are, no doubt, more severe; it's harder to have an accident with a knife) worth it? See, I care about being able to defend myself, while you just seem to care about preventing me from doing something stupid with a gun.

 

The "well regulated militia" doesn't apply to gun ownership. It's the law of the land.

 

You want to say that don't you? But you know the law says nothing about separation of church and state. Still you say nothing about it being rewritten and that is only because the court ruled that 's what it means. You don't want Americans owning guns so you say rewrite it. How to take our guns away? Your like most Liberals on this board. Once you make your mind up on something, nothing can change it no matter how much evidence your shown to the contrary. Eveidence shows Americans have never been barred from having guns. You will never admit you lost the argument. But of course you are a Liberal and we can't really expect you to be able to use common sense.

 

Those "many" who argue that are called leftists and they're not interested in original intent unless it suits them - which it rarely does.

The "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is anyone as far as the Federal Government is concerned. The Federal Government isn't authorized to regulate gun use/ownership by anyone, including slaves. The States and their individual masters, however...

Only unConstitutionally. Afterall, what's the point of having a written constitution if there is a clause that can be used to override everything it says?

 

It's interesting that the Court decided this a complete century later. Obviously the original framers of the 14th Amendment never meant to change the entire nature of the Bill of Rights - otherwise the Amendment would have specifically said so and cases against the States encoraching on those rights would have been presented before the Supreme Court starting back then instead of in the 20th century. The later ruling of the Court was politically motivated. It gave the Court sweeping powers and an expanded jurisdiction.

 

This is the problem we have with courts today, even the USSC. They rule more on Party beliefs than the rule of law. That is why both Democrats and Republicans want to load up the courts with what Party they belong to. This is not what the framers of our Constitution wanted.

 

It absolutely applies to gun ownership. It is regulated by the states is it not?

 

Are you trying to argue that a few shotguns and handguns can resist the full scale assault of the greatest military in the history of the planet? Do you think the people can defeat drones and missle strikes with their traditional arms?

I know you want to ride the conspiracy train, but be realistic. Guns are there for self defense and hunting. An army of knuckleheads in shotguns won't overthrow the military. That is in the hands of the generals, not your firearm.

 

I'm fairly sure most common weapon in the US is the AR-15, not shotguns.

Again, this presumption of no chance of success as a justification to take the guns away for current benefit is....suspicious...

 

The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg
it is a United Nations chart so I personally will not vouch for it but it is interesting

 

I already responded to your stupid claim that there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is not only there it is, in fact, the VERY FIRST thing they wrote in the Bill of Rights!

As for liking guns I like them just fine. I even own a few. But the 2A STILL says what it says. And it doesn't say what it doesn't say. If you want it to say something besides what it says then work to get it CHANGED! I find it pretty laughable that you aren't even arguing about that.

 

Seems that we take a beating wherever there are a few shotguns and handguns in other countries. Afghanistan is a good example.

 

Well, all it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which is not the same thing as separation of Church and State where any and all religion has to be banned from government. In fact, many schools were held in Churches early on and the Framers, most of which had some religious affiliation, felt religious teachings of ethics and morality were essential to the survival of this nation. Even those like Benjamin Franklin expressed as much even though he disdained organized religion.

 

Any decision the government could make pertaining to the promotion of any religion can be easily interpreted as "establishing a religion" and is clearly banned by the 1A. The fact that mistakes have been made in the past is no justification to keep making them. I'm quite certain that if the gov't started forcing your kids to pray to Allah in public schools you'd quickly figure out why its better this way.

 

You must have missed this, even the states have to abide by Supreme Court Decisions. It's the law of the land like Obama Care Dude.

 

Again, you seem to have missed the point. Your proposal would be government making a law respecting the "establishment" of religion. The only way government can do that is by force. What it should not do is oppress free speech, which includes religious speech.

 

The law's goal is clearly stated: the security of a free state. Just because a well regulated militia furthered that goal as understood by the framers, doesn't mean that the security of a free state is accomplished only through a well regulated a militia. Otherwise they would have said only. The right of the people to bear arms is established to provide for the security of a free state. Just because circumstances have changed, and militias aren't really used for security like they were at the time of the writing, doesn't mean you throw the security and arms part out. The militia was simply a means that people used for the end of security back then. If the people's arms were confiscated, you didn't have a militia, which would have been clear to anyone living on the frontier back then, was not a good thing. But the aim of the 2nd remains the same: security. Guns still offer Americans security, even if we don't primarily use them through a militia.

 

Your comparing our government and our military to that of Afghanistan?

For one, our government has far too many bureaucrats that can't get along to ever agree on sicking the military on us. For two, Afghanistan doesn't boast the kind of military capabilities we do.

This opposing "tyranny" through your shotgun is obsolete crap. The most it does in that regard is provide civilian pressure to keep the individual politicians in check. The idea that a foreign country invading our population would be met with force is a far stronger argument.

 

Security in the form of self-defense, not from some government takeover. We need a dictator and a loyal band of generals for that to happen. As much as conservatives want to play out their little melodrama, Barack Obama and Senate Democrats are no where near that level.

 

There is ABSOLUTELY no such requirement of violence necessary to violate the 1st Amendment. Are you claiming that the only way something can be established is by violence? So a restaurant with a sign in front saying "Established in 1983" must have done so at gunpoint huh? And the only way I can establish a 9 PM bedtime for an 8 year old is to beat him into submission? That's what you are claiming huh?

Well OBVIOUSLY the word "establish" confuses you. Do you understand the word "no'? How about the word "law"? And the word "Congress"? Let's take a look at the entire sentence shall we?

The word "or" indicates that the first part is a stand alone statement. There are NO added requirements of any kind other than the words before the word "or". If I said. "I want hot dogs or hamburgers for dinner" it does NOT require that both be prepared or specify which if any condiments should be served with it. It could be argued that a bun is implied since that is the most common way to serve a hot dog or hamburger. But said bun would not be legally required either.

However, the second part of the statement "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does give you the right to freely exercise your religion as you choose. But you cannot have any government support in doing so. You might wish, for example, to have a teacher in a public school give a prayer before the class each morning. That would clearly violate the first clause. Yet any child who wished to do so would be within his or her rights as long as it doesn't disturb other people. Unfortunately Christians can't be happy with the free exercise of their own religion without wanting to force their primitive outdated nonsense on everyone around them. Which is EXACTLY what that first part of the sentence was designed to prohibit. You can do it outside of any government institution. Like you may want to open a restaurant where people are required to pray before meals. But "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" even if its just putting the Ten Commandments in front of a government building. Actually I suppose that could even be done as long as Congress doesn't make a law about it. But the SECOND Congress passes ANY law of ANY sort in regard to religion they are violating the law and it MUST be struck down.

 

I agree, I don't see anything near the level of tyranny going on in this country to warrant violence. Every time I fly in here from overseas, the first impression I get, as soon as I step out of customs is a bunch of spoiled brats. But not tyranny...

But I wouldn't rule out use of arms against a tyrannical govt forever. I don't want to be the generation someone 75 years down the road is cursing for our mistake in disarming ourselves.

 

We are an incredibly spoiled nation of brats. I blame one side more than the other, however.

 

Oh come now . . . leftwingers aren't quite as bad as all that.