How so? How many automatic weapons did Washington own? Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are arms, but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction? This reveals the silliness of the strict constructionist doctrine. If you really insist on strict construction, the 2nd amendment refers to the muskets, kentucky long rifles, cannon available to the writers of the second amendment. Incidentally, I have nothing against you owning as many weapons as you like - knock yourself out. I just get so damn sick and tired of people whining about the 2nd amendment, when they you know damn well they could give a rat's ass about the other amendments. For example, the constitution gives us the right to assemble peacefully for the redress of grievances. Does this mean you have the right to assemble anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances? No matter how peaceful you are, the police are gonna make you get off the street eventually. Our constitutional right to assemble is balanced against the safety and convenience of the public. So where, if anywhere, do you draw the line?
The united state supreme court has ruled several times that the protections found within the constitution apply to modern interpretations of old technology. Under the logic of your notion, computers and other forms of electronic communication would not be protected by the first amendment. And pray tell which politicians are concocting bills that would restrict the first amendment? Is there a list of words that have been deemed too offensive to be used in public or private, because they may have a negative effect in some people? Has there been any effort made to require individuals to submit to fingerprinting, submitting photo identification, and undergoing criminal background checks before they speak in a public setting? Are there any pieces of legislation that require a government-issued permit for operating and maintaining a blog? Incorrect. The constitution recognizes and protects a right to assemble peacefully. It does not give you anything. Because obstructing the flow of traffic is a criminal offense, and puts individuals at risk of serious harm. Meaning simply that you cannot engage in a particular behavior that a reasonable person would know or have reason to know puts the public at risk of serious harm through mere commission. Can you show how firearms ownership, not the use but the ownership, does anything to put anyone at risk of harm? Anything that does not involve falsely claiming that criminal action is the same thing as possession?
what idiocy. if Civilian cops have it-so should other civilians if its the standard individual issued rifle of the National Guard, then citizens ought to be able to own it the entire purpose of the second amendment doesn't change based on the state of the art. its amazing the contortions gun banners go through to try to screw up an easily understood prohibition on federal action
The 'state of the art' covers a pretty wide territory. The right to bear a Stinger anti-aircraft weapon shall not be infringed - it is an arm, after all. If that is what you are saying you have an obligation to make that clear. So let's re-ask the question: is the 2nd amendment absolute or not? If it is not, where do you draw the line.
a stinger missile is not an arm within the meaning of the second amendment. It also has INTERSTATE or International ramifications due to its range. It is more artillery or ordnance, not a small arm that one would normally keep or bear. Nice try. I don't know exactly where the line is because we have modern weapons that blur the line-such as an individually deployable rocket launcher. So I have a simple line for NOW (once we are able to own all he arms that are clearly protected, then we can talk about those gray area weapons which blur the line between arms and ordnance or arms and artillery) 1) any firearm any civilian police agency uses in the USA other civilians should be able to buy and own as easily as a 22 rifle 2) the standard issue individual rifle of a national guardsman or similar weapons
I have no objection to those definitions at all. The only point I'm making is that the constitution is being interpreted, rather than following the literal wording of the 2nd amendment. Indeed, many revolutionary militias had privately owned cannon as well as small-arms. These were understood to be part of the standard arms of the militia. The specific meaning of the word 'arms' will periodically need reinterpretation.as technology changes. The missing ingredient is gun responsibility. Citizens who choose to bear arms have an absolute responsibility to maintain the chain of custody of those arms, and to bear the full legal responsibility of failing in that responsibility.
NEVER BRING AN AX TO A GUN FIGHT: Customer with concealed carry permit fatally shoots ax-wielding attacker at 7-Eleven. Investigators said the shooting happened at the store in White Center at approximately 5:45 a.m. local time. Witnesses said the man entered the store and swung a hatchet toward the customer before turning his attention to the clerk. As the assailant attacked, the customer pulled out a pistol and fired, hitting the suspect. The clerk suffered minor injuries to his stomach and the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. The customer who shot the suspect is described as a 60-year-old Seattle man who visits the store every morning to get coffee. His name was not immediately released. Authorities said the man who shot the attacker had a concealed carry permit and likely would not face charges as a result of his action. “This could have been a lot worse,” King County Sheriff’s Sergeant Cindi West told KCPQ. “The clerk could be the one laying there dead on the floor right now.” Stories like this one deserve more attention, and local merchants should recognize the brave action taken by one of their own customers. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229112/
Having an opinion directly at odds with your interpretation does not make anyone a traitor nor an enemy. To be honest, the notion that they are is quite hateful.
I think you meant to say, not only my interpretation, but the Supreme Court as well. Write them a letter and tell them how hateful they are.
The US Supreme Court, described people with a differing opinion to theirs on the second amendment as a traitor or enemy? I find that difficult to believe. Thus, far only one poster has attempted to suggest that.
why would they care what a foreigner has to say about our rights? He's wrong of course and gun banners are enemies of our constitution
I am not a foreigner, I am very local. For the record, for people who have different opinions to you, that you consider your enemy, what does being your enemy entail?
What Does Hillary Know About The Hundreds Murdered With Fast And Furious Guns? I just don't get this "we are all for gun control" and yet they are walking guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels. Even El Chappo had a .50 Cal Fast and Furious Weapon. The guns smuggled into Mexico by the Obama Administration during a gun smuggling plot called Operation Fast and Furious are still taking lives and turning up at crime scenes. The weapons from a botched U.S. firearms investigation are cropping up in anti-cartel operations in Mexico, a Justice Department summary issued Tuesday confirmed. According to a report compiled for two Republican congressional committee chairmen, a WASR-10 rifle purchased six years before in the U.S. as part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Operation Fast and Furious was one of three rifles used in a July 27 attack in the town of Valle de Zaragoza that left three Mexican police officers dead. Another weapon tied to the operation was uncovered in the hideout where Sinaloa Cartel drug leader, Joaquín El Chapo Guzmán Loera, was arrested in January. [The ATF] and the [Justice] Department deeply regret that firearms associated with Operation Fast and Furious have been used by criminals in the commission of violent crimes, particularly crimes resulting the death of civilians and law enforcement officers, assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik said in a Tuesday letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa and House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, according to USA Today. The letter continued: ATF accepts full responsibility for the flawed execution of Fast and Furious, and will continue to support Mexican law enforcement in efforts to recover and identify associated firearms. .................................... You accept full responsibility? We have never been told what the hell you were doing, why, and who authorized you to do it? Why did The Obama Administration smuggle more than 2,000 guns to narco-terrorists?. Not a single ATF agent has been criminally charged for their role in the operation, none fired, none demoted. Most were laterally transferred to favorable assignments, functional promotions. No Department of Justice, State Department, or White House officials have been held to account. Hundreds of people, elected officials, law enforcement officers, and children have been murdered with guns smuggled over the border in Fast and Furious, one of up to ten gun-walking operations being carried out in border states from California to Florida. The Obama Administration operations supplied 20,000 guns to narco-terrorists at precisely the same time that President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were pushing to ban certain firearms. Why? The very firearms that Obama, Holder, and Clinton wanted to ban publicly were the same ones that Holders Department of Justice was walking into Mexico by the thousands. Why? Secretary Clinton has not been probed for her agencys involvement into the scandal or lack of it. Secretary Clinton helped spread the 90-percent lie even though she knew the truth that only 8-percent of the guns in Mexico could be traced to U.S. gun shops. Why? Mrs. Clinton is running for President on a platform of radical gun control. What did she know about Fast & Furious, what shes really capable of doingand who and what shes willing to sacrificein pursuing her radical anti-gun agenda? http://bearingarms.com/hillary-know-hundreds-murdered-fast-furious-guns/
But it can certainly be concluded that the gun banners claims that more guns means more crime, is false. With the huge increase in gun ownership, concealed carry, open carry, relaxed state and federal laws, then if gun banners are correct then crime should have skyrocketed. It did just the opposite. And since Australia implemented its gun ban - and it is a ban - gun related crimes dropped from a low level to an even lower level, but violent crime increased tremendously. The explosion in violent crime started in 1996, the year the gun ban went into full effect. The AUS numbers in the following chart come directly from the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports. So the gun ban decreased homicide a small amount, but increased violence. You disarmed your nation and made it more violent.
