Gun rights advocates have long distorted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to justify their version of guns rights. The 2nd Amendment is clear, 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. There is no mention of the type of gun that could be owned. http://pollardpost.blogspot.com/2013/01/second-amendment-misused-by-gun-rights.html
I suppose you think that first amendment writes should be restricted to quill pens and manually operated printing presses.Thanks for the epic fail in logic though, it amused me
It's right there next to the part about subsidized abortions, free birth control, food stamps and 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. you're welcome.
Gun deaths in America are set to surpass driving deaths in a couple of years. Owning a gun should be subject to much more stringent tests and require education for their safe use. Nobody should be able to own a gun that hasn't passed a series of theoretical and practical tests and undertaken a rigorous course in gun handling and safety. They should have to renew their gun licence every 5 years and prove that they are still competent to handle a gun. There should also be distinctions made between the license for single-shot guns and any sort of legal automatic or semi-automatic weapon allowed, just like we have licenses to drive big trucks that are different than auto licenses. Penalties for breaking the law should include mandatory jail time and loss of gun permit and it should also apply to the person or company who sold the gun. Gun show organizers who allow such activity to take place would also end up in jail and permanently out of the gun business. This would mean that many of the ignorant idiots who keep guns today would lose them because they are too stupid or inept to operate such a lethal object. That is what "well-regulated" means in the context of the second amendment. I would also add that using a gun anywhere while drinking or drunk would result in a fine and a permit ban and the confiscation of their guns. Repeated offenses would result in jail time and a permanent ban on gun use or ownership.
Does it keep you up at nights knowing that your pipe dreams will never become a reality? That's gotta suck.
That is true but that can be established by logical deduction. We need to address the "militia" and why it is important and mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. The origin of the need for a militia originates with the Right of the Individual to defend themself from acts of aggression. First we defend our person from the acts of aggression of others. From that Right of Self-Defense comes our Right to Defend our Homes and Family from acts of aggression by others. From that Right comes our Right to Defend those Persons in our Community (towns and cities) from acts of aggression by others. From that Right to Defend our towns and cities from acts of aggression comes our Right to Defend our State. It is the State Militias that the 2nd Amendment refers to but the origin of the Right of Militias evolves from the Right of the Person to Self-Defense against acts of aggression. It is actually the Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression that is the foundation for the US Military as it acts as a unified means of preventing acts of aggression by foreign nations that would violate the Rights of the Individual to Self-Defenses of the Person. The entire "military" structure of the United States is based upon the Right of the Individual to defend themself from acts of aggression by others. So what weapons are logically protected by the 2nd Amendment? Because the military institutions we have such as the US Army, US Air Force, US Navy, and US Marines all have their authority and weapons based upon the Right of the Person then logically any weapon they have is based upon the Right of the Person to own those weapons which is what the 2nd Amendment protects. If the Person does not, for example, have the Right to Own an m1919 machine gun then the Person cannot delegate that Right to the US Military. The Government obtains all of it's Rights (Powers) from those Rights held by the Individual Person. If the Person doesn't have a Right (Power) then they cannot delegate that Right (Power) to the US government. Even in the most limited sense of the word "militia" it would be logical to use a US Army infantry squad as establishing the criterial of the "arms" required for a militia. The US Army uses ten-man squads with a squad leader, medic, and two four-man fire teams. Each fire team has a 5.56mm M249 light machine gun called the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) and three M-16 rifles, one with an M203 40mm grenade launcher attachment. Logically speaking, if a single block of US citizens were to form into an organized "block militia" of ten men it would mirror the US Army squad in composition and weapons. When gun control advocates cite the 2nd Amendment they need to understand the foundation for it as well as the weapons required by the "militia" that is comprised of the citizens of the United States. As noted based upon the composition of a regular US Army squad the citizens, under the 2nd Amendment, have a protected Right to own fully automatic weapons as well as grenade launchers and today we do have that Right. Yes, it requires a special permit to own a fully automatic firearm and grenade launchers but we do still retain that Right to own them under the 2nd Amendment. All of this originates with the fundamental Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression that is an inalienable Right of the Individual Person.
How does letting any idiot have a grenade launcher constitute a "well-regulated militia"? That's faulty reasoning.
How does letting an idiot in the US military have a grenade launcher make any more sense? Once agian the entire US military is based upon the inalinenable Right of the Individual to defend themself against acts of aggression by others. Without this inalienable Right of the Individual the US Military has no authority to exist. The Right of the US Military to have "arms" is based upon the Right of the Individual to have "arms" as protected by the 2nd Amendment. If I don't have a Right own a fully automatic weapon then a US soldlier doesn't have Right to own a fully automatic weapon. The soldier doesn't have any Rights (powers) that I don't possess just as the US government doesn't have any "Rights" (powers) that I don't possess because, as a citizen, I'm the one delegating my Rights to the Government. Try reading the Declaration of Independence where it states, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and we cannot delegate any "power" to government that we don't possess as individuals.
I guess you missed the special permit part. Oh btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller People have a right to defend themselves. Period. End of Discussion.
The bolded "militia clause" is a declaration of purpose... the rights of the people to keep and bear arms was/is the method (the Founders chose) to ensure it could/can, if ever needed, be fulfilled. Contextually identical to;
Clearly, you're both right, and our founders were smart to leave an ambiguous statement that can be easily interpreted in very different ways to suit the times in which we live.
There is no mention of any type of gun that COULDN'T be owned. You see, like most leftists, you don't understand the Constitution. The Constitution is designed to limit the power of government, not the rights of the people. Please get a clue. Buy some if necessary.
Indeed. And as we are living in a time in which government is making power grabs to curtail freedom at unprecedented rates, it's best we make sure the 2nd amendment remains strong. I'm sure you will agree the wisdom of our founding fathers trumps the ignorant babbling of clowns like Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein, right? http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/second-amendment
Ayuh,.... I'll consider givin' up My 2nd amendment rights, as soon as yer 1st amendment rights to post such tripe is removed.... That's All pure Bullship....
Your cherry picking. It says "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." That infers the Militia needs to be well regulated, not the guns themselves. You claim that Gun deaths is going to surpass driving deaths, you are speculating on future events. Speaking of gun deaths............ Deaths per 100,000 population: Accidents (unintentional injuries) 38.4 Salmonella infections 26 Nontransport accidents 25.7 Whooping cough 15 Drug-induced deaths 12.8 Intentional self-harm (suicide) 12.0 Motor Vehicle Accidents 11.8 Alcohol-induced deaths 8.0 Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 6.1 Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 3.7 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf More people harm themselves with a gun than intentionally kill others. I also add that......... You are 7 times more likely to die of Salmonella from a bad piece of undercooked chicken than being killed by someone with a gun. You are 6.9 times more likely to die of an untentional accident like slip and fall than being killed by someone with a gun. You are 4 times more likely to die of Whooping Cough than being killed by someone with a gun. You are 3.5 times more likely to die of using drugs than being killed by someone with a gun. You are 3.2 times more likely to die of a Car Accident than being killed by someone with a gun. You are 2.2 times more likely to die of a drinking too much Alcohol than being killed by someone with a gun. You are 1.6 times more likely to die of killing YOURSELF intentionally with a gun than being killed by someone else with a gun. That takes care of the guns. Now on to Violent Crimes......... The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. As anyone can clearly see European countries that severely limit gun ownership have a much higher violent crime rate than the U.S. The UK has 4.3 times the violent crime rate than the U.S. and Australia has 3.5 the violent crime rate than the U.S. So what conclusion do you draw from the violent crime rates in countries with severe gun restrictions being so very much higher than in the U.S.? Myself, I attribute it to the average persons inability to defend themselves against violent attackers. If you draw a different conclusion please explain in detail.
